query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 5
4.91k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
c95e3c5dbdb1516910f86ce5eff4a4b0
|
Why is the breakdown of a loan repayment into principal and interest of any importance?
|
[
{
"docid": "72647fff2c5bcd1b85110c5d24dd98f5",
"text": "The breakdown between how much of your payment is going toward principal and interest is very important. The principal balance remaining on your loan is the payoff amount. Once the principal is paid off, your loan is finished. Each month, some of your payment goes to pay off the principal, and some goes to pay interest (profit for the bank). Using your example image, let's say that you've just taken out a $300k mortgage at 5% interest for 30 years. You can click here to see the amortization schedule on that loan. The monthly payment is $1610.46. On your first payment, only $360 went to pay off your principal. The rest ($1250) went to interest. That money is lost. If you were to pay off your $300k mortgage after making one payment, it would cost you $299,640, even though you had just made a payment of $1250. Interest accrues on the principal balance, so as time goes on and more of the principal has been paid, the interest payment is less, meaning that more of your monthly payment can go toward the principal. 15 years into your 30-year mortgage, your monthly payment is paying $762 of your principal, and only $849 is going toward interest. Your principal balance at that time would be about $203k. Even though you are halfway done with your mortgage in terms of time, you've only paid off about a third of your house. Toward the end of your mortgage, when your principal balance is very low, almost all of your payment goes toward principal. In the last year, only $513 of your payments goes toward interest for the whole year. You can think of your monthly loan payment as a minimum payment. If you continue to make the regular monthly payments, your mortgage will be paid off in 30 years. However, if you pay more than that, your mortgage will be paid off much sooner. The extra that you pay above your regular monthly payment all goes toward principal. Even if you have no plans to pay your mortgage ahead of schedule, there are other situations where the principal balance matters. The principal balance of your mortgage affects the amount of equity that you have in your home, which is important if you sell the house. If you decide to refinance your mortgage, the principal balance is the amount that will need to be paid off by the new loan to close the old loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eff9b05f079615ac6d4d7cee02d6c73",
"text": "It's important because it shows that the amount you owe does not decrease linearly with each payment, and you gain equity as a correspondingly slower rate at the beginning of the loan and faster at the end. This has to be figured in when considering refinancing, or when you sell the place and pay off the mortgage. It also shows why making extra payments toward principal (if your loan permits doing so) is so advantageous -- unlike a normal payment that lowers the whole curve by a notch, reducing the length of time over which interest is due and thus saving you money in the long run. (Modulo possible lost-opportnity costs, of course.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "501b2ea8d743b90b7da0f82f3bc3c721",
"text": "Yes, the distinction between how your funds are applied to principal vs interest is very important. The interest amount charged each period (probably monthly) is not just one fixed sum calculated at the origination, but rather is a dynamically calculated amount that changes each period relative to how much principal is remaining (amount you owe). The picture you posted showing principal and interest assumes the payer always paid their minimum payment and never made any extra payments of principal. Take a look at the following graph and play around with the extra payment fields. You will see some pretty drastic differences in the Total Interest Paid (green lines) when extra payments are made. http://mortgagevista.com/#m=2&a=240000&b=4.5&c=30y&e=200&f=1/2020&g=10000&h=1/2025&G&H&J&M&N&P&n&o&p&q&x",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8879e48fff18d0db4a657a7bbac0afe",
"text": "\"The other answers have touched on amortization, early payment, computation of interest, etc, which are all very important, but I think there's another way to understand the importance of knowing the P/I breakdown. The question mentions the loan payment as \"\"cash outflow\"\". That is true, but from an accounting perspective (disclaimer: I am not an accountant, but I know enough of the basics to be dangerous), the outflow needs to be directed to different accounts. The loan principal appears as a liability on your personal balance sheet, which you could use, for example, in determining net worth. The principal amount in your payment should be applied to reduce the liability account. The interest payment goes into the expense account. Another way to look at it is that the principal, while it does reduce your cash account, can be thought of as an internal transfer to the liability account, thus reducing the size of the liability. The interest payment cannot. Aside: From this perspective, the value of the home is an asset, and the difference between the asset account and the loan liability account is the equity in the house (as pointed out in different language by the accepted answer). Of course, precisely determining the value of an illiquid asset like a house at any given moment pretty much requires you to actually sell it, so those accounts are hard to maintain in real-time (the liability of the loan is much easier to track).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f92d195707bc8910972f6def5a6b7f6d",
"text": "It's important because you may be able to reduce the total amount of interest paid (by paying the loan faster); but you can do nothing to reduce the total of your principal repayments. The distinction can also affect the amount of tax you have to pay. Some kinds of interest payments can be counted as business expenses, which means that they reduce the amount of income you have to pay tax on. But this is not generally the case for money used to repay the loan principal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a7d38f2451ab0d1f6ad2b66b641b5c7",
"text": "The reason it's broken out is very specific: this is showing you how much interest accrued during the month. It is the only place that's shown, typically. Each month's (minimum) payment is the sum of [the interest accrued during that month] and [some principal], say M=I+P, and B is your total loan balance. That I is fixed at the amount of interest that accrued that month - you always must pay off the accrued interest. It changes each month as some of the principal is reduced; if you have a 3% daily interest rate, you owe (0.03*B*31) approximately (plus a bit as the interest on the interest accrues) each month (or *30 or *28). Since B is going down constantly as principal is paid off, I is also going down. The P is most commonly calculated based on an amortization table, such that you have a fixed payment amount each month and pay the loan off after a certain period of time. That's why P changes each month - because it's easier for people to have a constant monthly payment M, than to have a fixed P and variable I for a variable M. As such, it's important to show you the I amount, both so you can verify that the loan is being correctly charged/paid, and for your tax purposes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1b4e0eb0641fc8e6dd1a94c8b3a36a1b",
"text": "\"You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Cash flow is the life blood of any business. When banks loan money, they are expecting a steady cash flow back. If you just pay back \"\"whenever\"\" - the bank has no idea what they'll be getting back month-to-month. When they can set the terms of the loan (length, rate, payment amount), they know how much cash flow they expect to get. What does [the term of the loan] even mean and what difference in the world does it make? In addition to the predictable cash flow needs above, setting a term for the loan determines how long their money will be tied up in the loan. The longer a bank has money tied up in a loan, the more risk there is that the borrower will default, so the bank will require a greater return (interest rate) for that extra risk. What you have described is effectively a revolving line of credit. The bank let you borrow money arbitrarily, charges you a certain rate of interest, and you can pay them back at your schedule. If you pay all of the interest for that month, everything else goes to principal. If you don't pay all of the interest, that interest is added to the balance and gets interest compounded on top of it. Both are perfectly viable business models, and bank employ them both, but they meed different needs for the bank. Fixed-term loans help stabilize cash flow, and lines of credit provide convenience for customers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d6eaeb4ba54c786c2800de434892ca9",
"text": "\"I'm going to give a simpler answer than some of the others, although somewhat more limited: the complicated loan parameters you describe benefit the lender. I'll focus on this part of your question: You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Here \"\"you\"\" refers to the borrower. Sure, yes, it would be great for the borrower to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want, increasing or decreasing the loan balance by paying or not paying arbitrary amounts at their whim. But it doesn't benefit the lender to let the borrower do this. Adding various kinds of restrictions and extra conditions to the loan reduces the lender's uncertainty about when they'll be receiving money, and also gives them a greater range of legal recourse to get it sooner (since they can pursue the borrower right away if they violate any of the conditions, rather than having the wait until they die without having paid their debt). Then you say: And if you want, you can set a legal deadline. But the mere deadline in the contract doesn't affect how much interest is paid—the interest is only affected by how much money is borrowed and how long has passed. I think in many cases that is in fact how it works, or at least it is more how it works than you seem to think. For instance, you can take out a 30-year loan but pay it off in less than 30 years, and the amount you pay will be less if you pay it off sooner. However, in some cases the lender will charge you a penalty for doing so. The reason is the same as above: if you pay off the loan sooner, you are paying less interest, which is worse for the lender. Again, it would be nice for the borrower if they could just pay it off sooner with no penalty, but the lender has no reason to let them do so. I think there are in fact other explanations for these more complicated loan terms that do benefit the borrower. For instance, an amortization schedule with clearly defined monthly payments and proportions going to interest and principal also reduces the borrower's uncertainty, and makes them less likely to do risky things like skip lots of payments intending to make it up later. It gives them a clear number to budget from. But even aside from all that, I think the clearest answer to your question is what I said above: in general, it benefits the lender to attach conditions and parameters to loans in order to have many opportunities to penalize the borrower for making it hard for the lender to predict their cash flow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6702878eced62b5b1a1c2ff83ce6aba8",
"text": "\"You seem to think that you are mostly paying interest in the first year because of the length of the loan period. This is skipping a step. You are mostly paying interest in the first year because your principle (the amount you owe) is highest in the first year. You do pay down some principle in that first year; this reduces the principle in the second year, which in turn reduces the interest owed. Your payments stay the same; so the amount you pay to principle goes up in that second year. This continues year after year, and eventually you owe almost no interest, but are making the same payments, so almost all of your payment goes to principle. It is a bit like \"\"compounded interest\"\", but it is \"\"compounded principle reduction\"\"; reducing your principle increases the rate you reduce it. As you didn't reduce your principle until the 16th year, this has zero impact on the interest you owed in the first 15 years. Now, for actual explicit numbers. You owe 100,000$ at 3% interest. You are paying your mortgage annually (keeps it simpler) and pay 5000$ per year. The first year you put 3000$ against interest and 2000$ against principle. By year 30, you put 145$ against interest and 4855$ against principle. because your principle was tiny, your interest was tiny.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c768a2572426fd23b4feda32756c24",
"text": "It also reduces risk from the bank's eyes. Believe it or not, they do lose out when people don't pay on their mortgages. Take the big 3 (Wells, Chase and BoA). If they have 50 million mortgages between the 3 of them and 20% of people at one point won't be able to pay their mortgage due to loss of income or other factors, this presents a risk factor. Although interest payments are still good, reducing their principal and interest keeps them tied down for additional (or sometimes shorter) time, but now they are more likely to keep getting those payments. That's why credit cards back in 07 and 08 reduced limits for customers. The risk factor is huge now for these financial institutions. Do your research, sometimes a refi isn't the best option. Sometimes it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4ce60e9a0bfdaf6901a81d352ebcb08",
"text": "\"I think the idea here is that because of the way mortgages are amortized, you can drop additional principal payments in the early years of the mortgage and significantly lower the overall interest expense over the life of the loan. A HELOC accrues interest like a credit card, so if you make a large principal payment using a HELOC, you will be able to retire those \"\"chunks\"\" of debt quicker than if you made normal mortgage payments. I haven't worked out the numbers, but I suspect that you could achieve similar results by simply paying ahead -- making even one extra payment per year will take 7-9 years off of a 30 year loan. I think that the advantage of the HELOC approach is that if you borrow enough, you may be able to recalculate/lower the payment of the mortgage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc84cf9347d8b4cf8bdb537eee046017",
"text": "This is because short term debt needs to be rolled over to finance the long term project and so, when interest rates rise they will be refinanced at a higher interest rate. This means that it will end up costing more than if the company had taken out a long term loan at the lower rate. A long term project implies that the beneficial (incoming) cashflows will be long term but with short term financing the debt will come payable sooner which is why it needs rolling over; any beneficial cashflows are not enough to cover the debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5b6570980cee300b2970bed11b976d2",
"text": "It's definitely NOT a good idea to pay off one of the smaller loans in your case - a $4k payment split across all the loans would be better than repaying the 5% / $4k loan completely, as it's the most beneficial of your loans and thus is last priority for repayment. A payment that splits across all the loans equally is, in effect, a partial repayment on a loan with an interest rate of 6.82% (weighed average rate of all your loans). It's not as good as repaying a 7% loan, but almost as good. It might be an option to save up until you can repay one of your 7% loans, but it depends - if it takes a lot of time, then you would've paid unneccessary interest during that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a129fd83fd9f7f640ff960c34b2d2a2",
"text": "is it really so important to have good credit with so much collateral Yes it is important to have good credit, the bank may not lend or may charge higher for bad credit. If you were to default the bank will get all that equity so You are missing the fundamental. Bank cannot take more than what they are owed. When they take possession of house, they auction it. Take what was due from the sale and return any surplus to the owner. This entire process takes time and hence bank wants to avoid giving loan to someone who they feel is risky. Edit: There are different aspects of risk that the bank factors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec9c26997f81609a501071663b98f250",
"text": "Can I give the bank the $300,000 to clear the mortgage, or must I pay off the total interest that was agreed upon for the 30 year term? This depends on the loan agreement. I had one loan where I was on the hook regardless. Early payment was just that, early payment. It would have allowed me to skip months without making payments (because I had already made them). Most loans charge interest on the remaining balance. If you pay early, it reduces your balance, decreasing the interest. If you pay it off early, there's no more balance and no more interest. I'm curious why the bank would let you do this, since they will lose out on a lot of profit. But they have their money back and can loan it out again. If they maintained the loan, they aren't guaranteed of getting their money. Interest is rent that you pay for the loan of the money. Once you return the money, why pay more rent? While some apartment leases require paying through the entire term, most allow for early termination with proper notice. You give back the apartment; the landlord rents it out again. Why should they get paid two rents? Another issue is that if someone with a mortgage switches jobs to a new location, that person will likely prefer to sell the current house and buy one in the new location. This is actually the typical way for a mortgage to end. If the bank did not allow that, they would essentially force the family to rent out the mortgaged house and rent a new house. So the bank would go from an owner-occupied house that the inhabitants want to keep maintained to a rental, where the inhabitants only care to the extent of their legal liability. Consider the possibility that the homeowners lose one of their jobs. They can't afford the house. So they sell it and close out the mortgage. Should the bank refuse to allow the sale and attempt to recover the interest from the impoverished homeowners? That situation would almost guarantee an expensive foreclosure. Once there is any early termination clause for any reason, it makes sense for the bank to structure the loan to include the possibility. That way they don't have to investigate whatever excuse is involved. Loan regulators may require this as well, particularly on mortgages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a851b6da4dce317e819435e752e9e6b0",
"text": "\"Will the proportion of my payments towards interest eventually go down? Yes. Today would be a good day to do a web search for \"\"amortization schedule\"\". You will quickly learn how to compute precisely how much of each payment goes to interest and how much goes to principal given different payment choices. Would it be wiser to spend more each month on loan payments? That depends on your goals and resources, which we know nothing about. If you have extra money you could spend it on debt reduction, or you could spend it on an investment that pays more money in growth or dividends than the interest you'd save. Or you could decide that the longer you have that loan, sure, the more interest you'll pay, but inflation will make future money less valuable. Basically, by taking out a loan you have chosen to gamble that the thing you bought with the loaned money will be worth the cost of the interest payments in the future, adjusted for inflation. The bank on the other hand is gambling that you're good for the debt and that they can make a reasonable profit off it. If you have more money to gamble with, which bet is the wisest one is really up to you. would it be smarter to try to pay off one loan before the other? If you want to pay off a loan early then always choose the loan with the higher interest rate. should I start making bi-weekly payments instead of monthly? That's roughly equivalent to paying off the principal by one additional payment a year. There are two reasons to do so. The first is that the total interest will be lower and the loan will be paid off faster. You can work out exactly how much with your new found skill at amortization computation. The second is the simple convenience of knowing that your budget for each pay period is the same. That convenience is worth something; is it worth the amount extra you'll be paying every year? Again, this is for you to decide. Work out how much extra you're paying per year and how much you're saving in the long run, and compare that against the benefit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64b5152109801f6c7a91e2afffa778a4",
"text": "\"Loans do not carry an \"\"interest balance\"\". You can not pay off \"\"all the interest\"\". The only way to reduce the interest to zero is to pay off the loan. Otherwise, the interest due each month is some percentage of the outstanding principal. Think of it from the bank's perspective: they've invested some amount of money in you, and they expect a return on that investment in the form of interest. If you somehow paid in 16 years all the interest the bank expected to receive in 30 years, you've been scammed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "508ba9807775aa566286ecb749ae099a",
"text": "No offense to any bankers who are reading, but i find it remarkable that they can confuse what I'd expect to be an otherwise simple explanation. If at the end of each day the interest is added, you go to sleep with a new balance. At the moment it's added, you have no interest due, just a higher principal amount than when you went to sleep last night. When I view my loan, I know how much interest added to principal since the last payment. Any amount I pay over that has to go to principal. Forgive me, but the rest sounds like nonsense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79d2ca0681ec20663320a4dee527ced1",
"text": "It could be a couple of things besides extra principal: I seem to remember hearing that some (shady?) lenders would just pocket extra payments if you didn't specify where they were headed, but I've also been told that this just isn't true.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b43238f7a44ef1ebe3914773ab7131b0",
"text": "There are a few reasons, particularly for businesses. The first is opportunity cost. That chunk of money they have could be used to get higher returns somewhere else. If they can borrow from a bank at low interest rates to finance their ongoing operations, they can use their cash to get a higher return somewhere else. The second is credit rating. For public companies, ratings companies give high emphasis to companies with large reserves. This strengthens their ability to pay back the loan should it become necessary. A good credit rating in turn let's the company borrow money at lower rates. When a company can borrow money at low rates, it circles back to the first point where they can now put their reserves to better use. The third is leverage. Companies can use the cash they have built up to leverage into a larger investment. Assuming the investment works out, it will pay for the cost of borrowing over time. For instance let's say I have $1 million to invest. I can pay all cash for a $1 million apartment building or I can leverage that into a $3 million building. Assuming I run it well, the tenants will pay for the cost of borrowing $2 million and at the end of the term I'll be left with my $3 million building.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c10de11a5a0c132dd32fd6d66e89194",
"text": "As stated above, the IRA accounts themselves are individual. But if you want to simulate a joint account, the following actions would help: Make sure to setup each account with the other spouse as the beneficiary so that each account goes to any surviving spouse should the unexpected happen. Some brokers (I know TDA does this) allow you to grant access to your account to another login, so that effectively one spouse could make the invest decisions for all your accounts. This is better than simply sharing your username and password, which is against many T&Cs. If you do this in both directions, each spouse has access to all accounts.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ec6a767e034b6839db9d7505aea17295
|
Why must identification be provided when purchasing a money order?
|
[
{
"docid": "e8034a4cc4698ab17120162a58ee34d8",
"text": "The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires that banks assist the U.S. Gov't in identifying and preventing money laundering. This means they're required to keep records of cash transactions of Negotiable Instruments, and report any such transactions with a daily aggregate limit of a value greater than (or equal to?) $10,000. Because of this, the business which is issuing the money order is also required to record this transaction to report it to the bank, who then holds the records in case FinCEN wants to review the transactions. EDITED: Added clarification on the $10,000 rule",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3643d7beeb720ccb8b716a16c50eaae2",
"text": "\"The best I could come up with would be to simply ask for the amount of \"\"notes\"\" and \"\"coins\"\" you would like, and specify denominations thereof. The different currency labels exist for the reason that not all of them are valued the same, so USD 100 is not the same as EUR 100. To generalize would mean some form of uniformity in the values, that just isn't there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1c13aa49e715118d2734bb6c0617b2d",
"text": "PayPal is free for buyers, taking their profit from the sellers -- in much the same way that credit cards take a percentage from the seller (though they will also charge you interest if you don't pay off the entire balance every month). As far as I know, there's nothing that keeps a vendor from having a different price for PayPal customers than cash customers... but that would show up in the number displayed by PayPal before you authorize the purchase, so if you're paying attention it shouldn't be possible to sneak it by you. PayPal has several modes of operation. I'm not aware of one where they hold your balance. Normally you either give them your credit card info, or you give them information about (one of your) bank account(s) and authorize them to do electronic funds transfer from and to that account on your behalf. I've always stuck with the credit card approach; I trust PayPal but I don't trust them that far, on principle. If I was going to link them to an account, it would be a small account I'd create for that purpose, NOT my main savings/checking accounts! (Hm. Actually, I do have one account which normally floats around $500 -- it's the one I dump accumulated pocket change into -- and I could use that. If I ever feel a need to do so.) PayPal does reduce the risk of credit card numbers being abused, by reducing how many people you've given the number to. Depending on what kinds of purchases you make, that may be a security advantage. It certainly doesn't hurt. Personally I have no problem with giving my card number directly to a serious business, but on eBay or sites of that sort where I'm dealing with individuals who are complete strangers I do like the isolation that PayPal provides. In other words, eBay is exactly the environment where I DO use PayPal. After all, that's exactly what PayPal was created for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a4097030d02ad2fe799e6e03e6d176",
"text": "Debit card purchases without PIN are treated as credit card purchases by merchants, and that includes ID verification. In addition to the ways you mentioned, you can get a debit card in any grocery store and load it with cash, and these debit cards don't have a name imprinted on them. But then if you lose them - you may have troubles proving you did in fact lose them when you try to recover your money, as anyone can use them. Technically you can register them online and call in and request refunds for fraud losses just as any other debit/credit card in the US (with $50 deductible), but in practice it may be difficult. These cards have very high fees, and may not be accepted for rentals etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c79f2e2c120b60e4f3b95c05270dbedf",
"text": "See what your current card requires for additional cards. When my daughter turned 16, and I ordered a card for her, I realized the issuer didn't ask for her social security number, only a name and address. That's when I also ordered a card with my pseudonym. Which I believe is what you're looking for. I realize that you prefer no name at all, but any online site where you place an order will require you to fill in that name field .",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "571edf1671b49f1cc5c36968933430f8",
"text": "In any country, individuals (and shops) can reject any form of payment that is not Legal Tender - defined by law as a payment form that must be accepted. Shops are typically more generous, because they want to do business with you, but individuals are in a different position. In France, only official coins and bills are declared as Legal Tender (so if they don't want to, individuals don't even need to accept bank transfers). This is for doubts you need to pay. In addition, as you are not forced to do business with them, people and shops can require whatever they feel like to require - if you want to buy their car, they can ask you to stand on your head and spit coins, and if you don't like it, they don't sell to you. (They won't do much business then, probably)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab2e33242dd7429fea27ae355e2ed0a4",
"text": "\"For me, it would be hard to leave all forms of money at home (cash, credit card, debit card.) There are times when you simply need to have money on hand. But, here's a simple idea I have that lets you bring your cards with you, yet still puts up a hurdle to curb impulse buying. When you're in a situation where you want to buy something, the card that's in your wallet/purse will be wrapped in your crafted \"\"reminder envelope.\"\" You'll see the reminder, which is hopefully enough. Then, in order to make a purchase you'll need to tear it open. That should get you to think twice. The one problem with the above is online purchases: If you have memorized your card information, add this rule for yourself: No online purchases without the payment card present and visible. (i.e. you also must tear open the envelope for online purchases.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6dfcf26a5db31418a373383a13b4b34",
"text": "Nowadays, the field is irrelevant for processing the transfer and completely ignored by the banks. Pretty much the only purpose it has is for documenting whom you intended to send the transfer to. If you mistakenly send a transfer to the wrong person (which is becoming extremely unlikely with the IBAN due to the builtin check digits) then they are mandated by law to give it back to you. If they refuse to do so and you end up going to court, the content of that field could be important to prove them wrong if they claim they are the rightful recipient.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3425475716ba46e14d125eb4d5332090",
"text": "**Know your customer** Know your customer (KYC) is the process of a business identifying and verifying the identity of its clients. The term is also used to refer to the bank and anti-money laundering regulations which governs these activities. Know your customer processes are also employed by companies of all sizes for the purpose of ensuring their proposed agents, consultants, or distributors are anti-bribery compliant. Banks, insurers and export creditors are increasingly demanding that customers provide detailed anti-corruption due diligence information. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a25541623ab02af2dc87e91002dd5fb2",
"text": "The IBAN uniquely identifies a Bank and Account number Globally. Technically only IBAN should be sufficient. However in real world, today the way application have got developed [over a last 30 years without IBAN being in place], require Beneficiary Bank Code [identifiers], because based on that they determine how the payment needs to be processed. Although IBAN has been adopted by more countries in Europe [plus Australia, New Zealand and more], there applications have not yet undergone the required change to fully support the real purpose or essence of IBAN. It would still be quite some time for IBAN to be truly functional.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ba2c626ca84ace787e7a478a3acbf83",
"text": "There generally isn't much in the way of real identity verification, at least in the US and online. The protection you get is that with most credit cards you can report your card stolen (within some amount of time) and the fraudulent charges dropped. The merchant is the one that usually ends up paying for it if it gets charged back so it's usually in the merchant's best interest to do verification. However the cost of doing so (inconvenience to the customer, or if it's an impulse buy, giving them more time to change their mind, etc) is often greater than the occasional fraudulent charge so they usually don't do too much about it unless they're in a business where it's a frequent problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "398bfb864e3bdee31e346f5c9836893b",
"text": "It depends on the seller. If the seller wants, they can collect the information from you and send it to the payment gateway. In that case, they of course have everything that you provide at some point. They are not supposed to keep the security code, and there are rules about keeping the credit card number safe. The first four digits of the credit card number often indicate the bank, although smaller banks may share. But for example a Capital One card would indicate the bank. Other sellers work through a payment gateway that collects the information. Even there, the seller may collect most of the information first and send it to the gateway. In particular, the seller may collect name, email, phone, and address information. And in general the gateway will reveal that kind of information. They will not give the seller credit card info other than the name on the card, expiration date, and possible last four digits. They may report if the address matches the card's billing address (mismatched addresses may mean fraud). Buying through someone like PayPal can provide the least information. For a digital good, PayPal can only expose the buyer's name (which may be a business name) and email (associated with the payment account). However PayPal still has the other information and may expose it under legal action (e.g. if the credit card transaction is reversed or the good sold is illegal). And even PayPal will expose the shipping address for physical goods that require shipping.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf31dca0449fe2ee8c4a4b0001b7fcfd",
"text": "It is likely the policy of the credit card company. If you are running a business, you should factor in theft as part of your mark-up/margin. Every major business accounts for theft within their business practices and accounting. That way they are covered for instances like yours. If you have not been accounting for theft, then I'd highly recommend it. This might be an expensive learning lesson for your family business. Either implement new procedures such as checking ID with credit cards to match the names, or factor in theft/loss of product into your margins. Ideally, do both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bcb8768fec274447c5e41195f94b885",
"text": "They could if they wanted. It's of course illegal to do if you didn't authorize it, and to process credit cards, they need to have a relationship with a credit card processing company, which is not so easy to fake - not any Joe could do that using a fake ID. Note that you are protected through your credit card company; if you tell them it's an unauthorized charge, they'll return it to you without discussion. It is then the vendor's duty to prove that it was authorized, and if he cannot, he'll pay extra fees to the processing company. Overall, the risk is very small; it shouldn't be your worry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96159077e368527db2d43f985f7595bd",
"text": "\"Your money in the bank is yours. If you lose your bank card and forget the account number, it's still yours. It's just harder to prove. If your name is Joe Smith, it might be harder to find your bank account and to prove it's yours. If \"\"go to the bank\"\" means walking into a branch of the bank and walking out with your money fifteen minutes later, that's unlikely to happen. More likely they will give you forms to fill in to maximise chances of finding your account, and tell you what evidence to bring to prove that you are the owner of the account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a65fc91a3ca55f1c0bd429d5487b7e8c",
"text": "The laws of the United States of America require that the federal currency issued is accepted as legal tender for all goods and services anywhere within this country. One really has to wonder what the motivation behind this story is. VISA obviously knows that such a move is illegal. I am skeptical that there's any truth to the article at all.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f0b46f6be1f5994ac8f963c36b439024
|
Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career?
|
[
{
"docid": "35d0603711e7c4e1070df7eb7293ba24",
"text": "\"First off, I highly recommend the book Get a Financial Life. The basics of personal finance and money management are pretty straightforward, and this book does a great job with it. It is very light reading, and it really geared for the young person starting their career. It isn't the most current book (pre real-estate boom), but the recommendations in the book are still sound. (update 8/28/2012: New edition of the book came out.) Now, with that out of the way, there's really two kinds of \"\"investing\"\" to think about: For most individuals, it is best to take care of #1 first. Most people shouldn't even think about #2 until they have fully funded their retirement accounts, established an emergency fund, and gotten their debt under control. There are lots of financial incentives for retirement investing, both from your employer, and the government. All the more reason to take care of #1 before #2! Your employer probably offers some kind of 401k (or equivalent, like a 403b) with a company-provided match. This is a potential 100% return on your investment after the vesting period. No investment you make on your own will ever match that. Additionally, there are tax advantages to contributing to the 401k. (The money you contribute doesn't count as taxable income.) The best way to start investing is to learn about your employer's retirement plan, and contribute enough to fully utilize the employer matching. Beyond this, there are also Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) you can open to contribute money to on your own. You should open one of these and start contributing, but only after you have fully utilized the employer matching with the 401k. The IRA won't give you that 100% ROI that the 401k will. Keep in mind that retirement investments are pretty much \"\"walled off\"\" from your day-to-day financial life. Money that goes into a retirement account generally can't be touched until retirement age, unless you want to pay lots of taxes and penalties. You generally don't want to put the money for your house down payment into a retirement account. One other thing to note: Your 401K and your IRA is an account that you put money into. Just because the money is sitting in the account doesn't necessarily mean it is invested. You put the money into this account, and then you use this money for investments. How you invest the retirement money is a topic unto itself. Here is a good starting point. If you want to ask questions about retirement portfolios, it is probably worth posting a new question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8542f403ccc447be8bc5d2ba558420a2",
"text": "First I'd like to echo msemack's answer. Start by maxing out your 401K and IRA contributions. Not a lot of people just starting their career have the luxury of doing much more outside of that. Here are some additional tips that I learned when I was just getting started:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f1640e23ad8d51220d1245790777b31",
"text": "First, congratulations on even thinking about investing while you are still young! Before you start investing, I'd suggest you pay off your cc balance if you have any. The logic is simple: if you invest and make say 8% in the market but keep paying 14% on your cc balance, you aren't really saving. Have a good supply of emergency fund that is liquid (high yielding savings bank like a credit union. I can recommend Alliant). Start small with investing. Educate yourself on the markets before getting in. Ignorance can be expensive. Learn about IRA (opening an IRA and investing in the markets have (good)tax implications. I didn't do this when I was young and I regret that now) Learn what is 'wash sales' and 'tax loss harvesting' before putting money in the market. Don't start out by investing in individual stocks. Learn about indexing. What I've give you are pointers. Google (shameless plug: you can read my blog, where I do touch upon most of these topics) for the terms I've mentioned. That'll steer you in the right direction. Good luck and stay prosperous!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f71d19e6c9d2beac1ed6871b68dc4618",
"text": "Not 100% related, but the #1 thing you need to avoid is CREDIT CARD DEBT. Trust me on this one. I'm 31, and finally got out of credit card debt about eight months ago. For just about my entire 20s, I racked up credit card debt and saved zero. Invested zero. It pains me to realize that I basically wasted ten years of possible interest, and instead bought a lot of dumb things and paid 25% interest on it. So yes, put money into your 401k and an IRA. Max them out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19cf08f2e1f80a9be0d2a44020501f00",
"text": "Warren Buffett answered this question very well at the 2009 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting. He said that it was important to read everything you can about investing. What you will find is that you will have a number of competing ideas in your head. You will need to think these through and find the best way to solve them that fits you. You will mostly learn how to invest through good examples. There are fewer good examples out there than you might think, given how many books there are and how many people get paid to give advice in this area. If you want to see how professional investors actually think about specific investments, over a thousand investment examples can be found at www.valueinvestorsclub.com, just login as a guest. The site is run by Joel Greenblatt (you would benefit from reading his books also), and it will give you a sense of the work that investors put into their research. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aa50063f3f9ec9137401eee02976443",
"text": "\"The most important thing is to start. Don't waste months and years trying to figure out the \"\"optimal\"\" strategy or trying to read all the best books before you start. Pick a solid, simple choice, like investing in your company sponsored 401(k), and do it today. This I Will Teach You To Be Rich post on barriers has some good insight on this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5f6ab42ec27749661579ad1362da721",
"text": "I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available. This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert. The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49183a72c0b15726b887ab56f8c064b5",
"text": "\"This is a tough question, because it is something very specific to your situation and finances. I personally started at a young age (17), with US$1,000 in Scottrade. I tried the \"\"stock market games\"\" at first, but in retrospect they did nothing for me and turned out to be a waste of time. I really started when I actually opened my brokerage account, so step one would be to choose your discount broker. For example, Scottrade, Ameritrade (my current broker), E-Trade, Charles Schwab, etc. Don't worry about researching them too much as they all offer what you need to start out. You can always switch later (but this can be a little of a hassle). For me, once I opened my brokerage account I became that much more motivated to find a stock to invest in. So the next step and the most important is research! There are many good resources on the Internet (there can also be some pretty bad ones). Here's a few I found useful: Investopedia - They offer many useful, easy-to-understand explanations and definitions. I found myself visiting this site a lot. CNBC - That was my choice for business news. I found them to be the most watchable while being very informative. Fox Business, seems to be more political and just annoying to watch. Bloomberg News was just ZzzzZzzzzz (boring). On CNBC, Jim Cramer was a pretty useful resource. His show Mad Money is entertaining and really does teach you to think like an investor. I want to note though, I don't recommend buying the stocks he recommends, specially the next day after he talks about them. Instead, really pay attention to the reasons he gives for his recommendation. It will teach you to think more like an investor and give you examples of what you should be looking for when you do research. You can also use many online news organizations like MarketWatch, The Motley Fool, Yahoo Finance (has some pretty good resources), and TheStreet. Read editorial (opinions) articles with a grain of salt, but again in each editorial they explain why they think the way they think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "979c95a7d82d2ff23aa9bbc97332178e",
"text": "If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad3cf054c9e8adab894e9d6b4ee3ea2f",
"text": "Adding to the very good advises above - Concentrate on costs related to investment activity. Note all expenses and costs that you pay. Keep it low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "becdcfc45a8504a311011b12d5987a2d",
"text": "When you start to buy stock, don't buy too little of it! Stocks come at a cost (you pay a commission), and you need to maintain a deposit, you have to take these costs into account when buying to calculate your break even point for selling. Don't buy stock for less than 1.500€ Also, diversify. Buy stock from different sectors and from different geographies. Spread your risks. Start buying 'defensive' stocks (food, pharma, energy), then move to more dynamic sectors (telecom, informatics), lastly buy stock from risky sectors that are not mature markets (Internet businesses). Lastly, look for high dividend. That's always nice at the end of the year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24",
"text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "394e8db16539286dcd7b3a351f08a4af",
"text": "Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b272698e1679609d91d03ae6740f5359",
"text": "I started my career over 10 years ago and I work in the financial sector. As a young person from a working class family with no rich uncles, I would prioritize my investments like this: It seems to be pretty popular on here to recommend trading individual stocks, granted you've read a book on it. I would thoroughly recommend against this, for a number of reasons. Odds are you will underestimate the risks you're taking, waste time at your job, stress yourself out, and fail to beat a passive index fund. It's seriously not worth it. Some additional out-of-the box ideas for building wealth: Self-serving bias is pervasive in the financial world so be careful about what others tell you about what they know (including me). Good luck.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "99ec4e9ad2c34404edec3c8e786cf33b",
"text": "There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3542140ac5e9dea0cfc935e2ec36c743",
"text": "Where is the money coming from? If you already have the money (inheritance, gifts or similar) sitting in your account, you can just buy e.g. index funds from Vanguard, Robinhood or other low-cost brokerages. But first you should estimate how much money you need for your studies - it is a bit of a gamble to invest money that you'll need to withdraw in a few years time. Even though the average return may be quite high (12% sounds like an overestimate, more commonly quoted figure is 7%), over short timespans your stocks will go up and down randomly. Once you actually have a job and have income from it, then the 401k and IRA and similar retirement accounts start to make sense. There is no need to have all your savings in the same account, so you can start saving now already.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dbe36e7d333c6d096f12c3665f9261e",
"text": "I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"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": "2234ad152a94b06edf2086f30592fe80",
"text": "I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fedc731ab6ca2dc898e6b0f3972279a9",
"text": "\"Put it in a Vanguard fund with 80% VTI and 20% VXUS. That's what you'll let set for 10-15 years. For somebody that is totally new to investing, use \"\"play money\"\" in the stock market. It's easy for young people to get dreams of glory and blow it all on some stock tip they've seen on Twitter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff00d276dc2faab32131924447924ce4",
"text": "There are lots of sub-parts to your question. Let's takle them one at a time. Should I worry about an IRA at this age? Absolutely! Or at least some form of retirement account. When you are young is the BEST time to start putting money into a retirement account because you have so much time for it to grow. Compounding interest is a magical thing. Even if you can only afford to put a very small amount in the account, do it! You will have to put a heck of a lot less money into the account over your working career if you start now. Is there a certain amount you need for the IRA deduction? No. Essentially with a traditional IRA you can just subtract the amount you deposited (up to the contribution limit) from your income when calculating your taxes. What kind of IRA should I get? I suggest a ROTH IRA, but be warned that with that kind you get the tax breaks when you retire, not now. If you think taxes will be higher in 40 years or so, then the Roth is a clear winner. Traditional IRA: Tax deduction this year for contribution; investment plus gains are taxed as income when you take the money out at retirement. Roth IRA: Investment amount is taxed in the year you put it in; no taxes on investment amount or gains when you take it out at retirement. Given the long horizon that you will be investing, the money is likely going to at least double. So the total amount you are taxed on over your lifetime would probably be less with the ROTH even if tax rates remain the same. Is the 401K a better option? If they offer a match (most do) then it is a no-brainer, the employer 401K always comes out on top because they are basically paying you extra to put money into savings. If there is no match, I suggest a Roth because company 401K plans usually have hidden fees that are much higher than you are going to pay for setting up your own IRA or Roth IRA with a broker.",
"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": "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": "8e1d0b430b37edba8ebb7bd4beea39ae",
"text": "First of all I recommend reading this short e-book that is aimed at young investors. The book is written for American investors but they same rules apply with different terms (e.g. the equivalent tax-free savings wrappers are called ISAs in the UK). If you don't anticipate needing the money any time soon then your best bet is likely a stocks and share ISA in an aggressive portfolio of assets. You are probably better off with an even more aggressive asset allocation than the one in the book, e.g. 0-15% bond funds 85-100% equity funds. In the long term, this will generate the most income. For an up-to-date table of brokers I recommend Monevator. If you are planning to use the money as a deposit on a mortgage then your best bet might be a Help to Buy ISA, you'll have to shop around for the best deals. If you would rather have something more liquid that you can draw into to cover expenses while at school, you can either go for a more conservative ISA (100% bond funds or even a cash ISA) or try to find a savings account with a comparable interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0ee72e0f45538a89c714aff65edec8b",
"text": "James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68c2ed7fd4fb4f18c56d58438d284b64",
"text": "Investing in the stock market early is a good thing. However, it does have a learning curve, and that curve can, and eventually will, cost you. One basic rule in investing is that risk and reward are proportional. The greater the reward, the higher the risk that you either (a) won't get the reward, or (b) lose your money instead. Given that, don't invest money you can't afford to lose (you mentioned you're on a student budget). If you want to start with short but sercure investments, try finding a high-interest savings account or CD. For example, the bank I use has an offer where the first $500 in your account gets ~6% interest - certainly not bad if you only put $500 in the account. Unfortunately, most banks are offering a pittance for savings rates or CDs. If you're willing to take more risk, you could certainly put money into the stock market. Before you do, I would recommend spending some time learning about how the stock market works, it's flows and ebbs, and how stock valuations work. Don't buy a stock because you hear about it a lot; understand why that stock is being valued as such. Also consider buying index funds (such as SPY) which is like a stock but tracks an entire index. That way if a specific company suddenly drops, you won't be nearly as affected. On the flip side, if only 1 company goes up, but the market goes down, you'll miss out. But consider the odds of having picked that 1 company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1d7295c043ae09e650db137040a74ed",
"text": "How do I start? (What broker do I use?) We don't make specific recommendations because in a few years that might not be the best recommendation any more. You are willing to do your own research, so here are some things to look for when choosing a broker: What criticism do you have for my plan? Seeking dividend paying stock is a sensible way to generate income, but share prices can still be very volatile for a conservative investor. A good strategy might be to invest in several broad market index and bond funds in a specific allocation (for example you might choose 50% stocks and 50% bonds). Then as the market moves, your stocks might increase by 15% one year while bonds stay relatively flat, so at the beginning of the next year you can sell some of your stocks and buy bonds so that you are back to a 50-50 allocation. The next year there might be a stock market correction, so you sell some of your bonds and buy stock until you are back to a 50-50 allocation. This is called rebalancing, and it doesn't require you to look at the market daily, just on a regular interval (every 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year, whatever interval you are comfortable with). Rebalancing will give you greater gains than a static portfolio, and it can insulate you from losses when the stock market panics occasionally if you choose a conservative allocation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eecd86f6b715a52cd18cb0f621378177",
"text": "It's really not possible to know what your best investment strategy is without knowing more about you, which isn't the place of a site like this. However I'll make some general comments about insurance policies as savings. Insurance policies are extremely inflexible. They lay down specific payments, and specific returns that you will get back. However typically if you don't follow the shcedule of payments laid down, you will lose almost all the benefit of the investment. Since you say you are a beginner, I'll assume you are young too. Maybe in a few years you will want to buy a house, or a nice car, or get married, or put money into some other investment opportunity. If you are committed to making insurance policy payments you will have less available for the other things you want to do. Related to this is the 'estimated returns'. You say the 'nonguaranteed bonus is around 3.75%-5.25%'. But because an insurance policy locks you in, if it turns out that it's the low end of that - or worse - you can't get out, even if other investments are outperforming it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a65594a18d3dd998b566955e0836c790",
"text": "If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
788063a586aa1bd18d74a904a7b7605b
|
Why are typical 401(k) plan fund choices so awful?
|
[
{
"docid": "5dddeefab58515aa461298ae819ed1ce",
"text": "401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c69713d90bd91bd6142580bd765e223",
"text": "I would point this out to the committee or other entity in charge of handling this at work. They do have a fiduciary responsibility for the participant's money and should take anything reasonable seriously. The flip side to this is 95% of participants -- especially participants under 35 or so -- really pay next to no attention to this stuff. We consider it a victory to get people to pony up the matching contributions. Active participation in investment would blow our minds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f637d28ed2f20cecce20e34bab4e0cd2",
"text": "The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "164a04ce2cf9f242e658d9350ca128fb",
"text": "To piggy back mbhunter's answer, the broker is going to find a way to make the amount of money they want, and either the employee or the company will foot that bill. But additionally, most small businesses want to compete and the market and offer benefits in the US. So they shop around, and maybe the boss doesn't have the best knowledge about effective investing, so they end up taking the offering from the broker who sells it the best. Give you company credit for offering something, but know they are as affected by a good salesperson as anybody else. Being a good sales person doesn't mean you are selling a good product.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8278b4e51960984a764e5fa69a584add",
"text": "401K accounts, both regular and Roth, generally have loans available. There are maximum amounts that are based on federal limits, and your balance in the program. These rules also determine the amount of time you have to repay the loan, and what happens if you quit or are fired while the loan is outstanding. In these loan programs the loan comes from your 401K funds. Regarding matching funds. This plan is not atypical. Some match right away, some make you wait. Some put in X percent regardless of what you contribute. Some make you opt out, others make you opt in. Some will direct their automatic amounts to a specific fund, unless you tell them otherwise. The big plus for the fund you describe is the immediate vesting. Some companies will match your investments but then only partially vest the funds. They don't want to put a bunch of matching funds into your account, and then have you leave. So they say that if you leave before 5 years is up, they will not let you keep all the funds. If you leave after 2 years you keep 25%, if you leave after 3 years you keep 50%... The fact they immediately vest is a very generous plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6afaace264db953883616071a4e578d",
"text": "This is literally the worst article ever. First dividends are not guaranteed, and the higher the yield the higher the risk for a dividend paying stock. When buying a stock that pays dividends make sure they have the cash flows to cover it long term. Utility stocks are interest rate sensitive. If we head into a period of high interest rates, utility stocks are going to underperform, if not get killed. Exchange traded funds can be extremely risky, and some have much higher fees than mutual funds. Variable Annuities should never be purchased unless you have exhausted all other tax deferred strategies, and then probably still to be avoided because of high fees. Money markets and CDs aren't really investments. They're a cash alternatives that May not keep up with inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b90dc3f316e64f6d93f0fd4e355334d",
"text": "An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d2575931e7d2b1704a1830353b1842d",
"text": "\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65145beacef7b0c43b871f77760ba90b",
"text": "While the other answers are good, I wanted to expand a little on why I feel a ROTH is a bad way to go unless you are young. First, let's pretend you have a 25% tax rate. And your investments will go up 5% per year for 10 years. You contribute 6% of income for one year. You can do a traditional or a roth 401k/IRA. Here's the math: Traditional: 6% of income invested. Grows at 5% for 10 years. Taxed at 25% on withdrawl. = (Income * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) * (100% - 25%) = (Income * 6%) * 1.63 * .75 = 7.33% of your original income - but this is after taxes ROTH: Taxes taken out of income. Then 6% of that goes into the fund(s). Still grows at 5% for 10 years. Not taxed at withdrawl. = (Income * (100% - 25%) * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) = (Income * 75% * 6%) * 1.63 = 7.33% of your original income - again this is after taxes. Look familiar? They are the same. It's the simple transitive property of mathematics. So why do a traditional vs. a ROTH? The reason is that your tax bracket changes. This changes because your income changes. Say when you retire you plan to have your home or vehicle paid for. You expect to be able to live on $50,000 per year. This means when you make MORE than $50,000 you should do a traditional plan and when you make less than this you should do a ROTH plan. Example: You make $100,000 and your upper bracket is now 30%. You save 30% by doing a traditional and then pay back 10, 20, and 30% as you withdraw a salary of $50,000. Traditional = better. Example: You make $30,000 annually. Your upper bracket is 20%. You pay 20% on a roth. Then you withdraw funds to get to $50,000 anually and never pay the higher bracket. Roth = better. ROTH advocates typically bring up tax rates. Of course they will go up they insist. So you always should do a ROTH. Not so fast. Taxes have gone down in recent years (No one please start a political debate with me. Some went up, some went down, but overall, federal income rates dropped). Even if taxes rose 5%, a traditional will still be better than a ROTH in many cases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bca170f15ded47fda9327e000cb5cbe",
"text": "\"The \"\"Money 70\"\" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are \"\"bad,\"\" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0e35575aa64bebb6e39286109ddf921",
"text": "\"Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the \"\"Freedom Funds\"\" offered. They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds. That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account. All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older. If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here? Let's do a quick example. Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%). I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds. Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year! Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company. This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee. Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund). Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA. That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want. Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those. Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7436eb25a30020c21f3702ee266941b",
"text": "\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68fd6f1ecbf65aa1c53d6bdf59d9e714",
"text": "Let me throw in one more variable to consider. Company 401K plans typically have MUCH higher fees than you are likely to get if you shop around on your own as long as you don't go with a high dollar broker. You won't see these fees on your statements typically, which I think is criminal, but they are hidden in the prices of the funds you are buying in the 401K. If you don't believe me, get the quotes for a fund from the 401K company's web-site then look up the same fund on a site like MSMoney. The share prices won't match and you will be angry until you come to terms with it. So if you have a choice of money in a personal retirement account versus a 401K always go with your own account... UNLESS: or",
"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": "56290eb39d292df78b8af33f4e308903",
"text": "Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8abab3a7c58f602a64ee42553c53c2d9",
"text": "\"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that \"\"reasonable\"\" and \"\"diversified\"\" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then \"\"age\"\" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "019436e3750e0037cce98d04021422c0",
"text": "the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9582508ff18f868305f5e696269c7552",
"text": "\"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better. The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations. Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better. As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme. Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will. As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach? Which job is going to make you happier now? Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing. But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation. Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, \"\"What is the effect in 20 years?\"\" but rather, which makes you happier now?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4ec1d889d25ed417131dc2a91cefb11",
"text": "\"Holding pure cash is a problem for 401K companies because they would then have follow banking rules because they would be holding your cash on their balance sheets. They don't want to be in that business. Instead, they should offer at least one option as a cash equivalent - a money market fund. This way the money is held by the fund, not by 401K administrator. Money Market funds invest in ultra-short term paper, such as overnight loans between banks and other debt instruments that mature in a matter of days. So it is all extremely liquid, as close to \"\"Money\"\" as you can get without actually being money. It is extremely rare for a money market fund to lose value, or \"\"break the buck.\"\" During the crisis of 2008, only one or two funds broke the buck, and it didn't last long. They had gotten greedy and their short term investments were a little more aggressive as they were trying to get extra returns. In short, your money is safe in a money market fund, and your 401K plan should offer one as the \"\"cash\"\" option, or at least it should offer a short-term bond fund. If you feel strongly that your money should be in actual cash, you can always stop contributing to the 401K and put the money in the bank. This is not a good idea though. Unless you're close to retirement, you'll be much better off investing in a well diversified portfolio, even through the ups and downs of the market.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c6aca853b7916acb747096db45470d3c
|
EIN for personal LLC: Is this an S-Corp?
|
[
{
"docid": "907c06c0b11341ee4ff7f1ae8fad9493",
"text": "Having an EIN does not make the LLC a corporation -- your business can have an EIN even when treated like a sole proprietorship. An EIN is required to have a Individual 401(k), for example. But you can still be an LLC, taxed as a sole proprietor, and have a 401(k). You would need to file a Form 2553 with the IRS to elect S Corporation status. If you don't do that, you're still treated as a disregarded LLC. Whether or not you should make the election is another question.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b15d163a90235fed85ed81ab71d178ac",
"text": "\"Do I understand correctly, that we still can file as \"\"Married filing jointly\"\", just add Schedule C and Schedule SE for her? Yes. Business registration information letter she got once registered mentions that her due date for filing tax return is January 31, 2016. Does this prevent us from filing jointly (as far as I understand, I can't file my income before that date)? IRS sends no such letters. IRS also doesn't require any registration. Be careful, you might be a victim to a phishing attack here. In any case, sole proprietor files a regular individual tax return with the regular April 15th deadline. Do I understand correctly that we do not qualify as \"\"Family partnership\"\" (I do not participate in her business in any way other than giving her money for initial tools/materials purchase)? Yes. Do I understand correctly that she did not have to do regular estimated tax payments as business was not expected to generate income this year? You're asking or saying? How would we know what she expected? In any case, you can use your withholding (adjust the W4) to compensate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82ff187f4225026f40610da4f9d69f54",
"text": "\"There's no difference between \"\"individual\"\" and \"\"business\"\" in this context. What is a personal transaction that involves credit card? You have a garage sale? Its business. You sell something on craigslist - business. Want to let people pay for your daughter's girlscout cookies - business. There's no difference between using Paypal (which has its own credit card reader, by the way) and Square in this context. No-one will ask for any business licenses or anything, just your tax id (be it SSN or EIN). Its exactly the same as selling on eBay and accepting credit cards through your Paypal account, conceptually (charge-back rules are different, because Square is a proper merchant account, but that's it).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb4538721131cc3f19655a02ffa66286",
"text": "\"If you start an LLC with you as the sole member it will be considered a disregarded entity. This basically means that you have the protection of being a company, but all your revenues will go on your personal tax return and be taxed at whatever rate your personal rate calculates to based on your situation. Now here is the good stuff. If you file Form 2553 you can change your sole member LLC to file as an S Corp. Once you have done this it changes the game on how you can pay out what your company makes. You will need to employ yourself and give a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary. This will be reported to the IRS and you will file your normal tax returns and they will be taxed based on your situation. Now as the sole member you can then pay yourself \"\"distribution to share holders\"\" from your account and this money is not subject to normal fica and social security tax (check with your tax guy) and MAKE SURE to document correctly. The other thing is that on that same form you can elect to have a different fiscal year than the standard calendar IRS tax year. This means that you could then take part of profits in one tax year and part in another so that you don't bump yourself into another tax bracket. Example: You cut a deal and the company makes 100,000 in profit that you want to take as a distribution. If you wrote yourself a check for all of it then it could put you into another tax bracket. If your fiscal year were to end say on sept 30 and you cut the deal before that date then you could write say 50,000 this year and then on jan 1 write the other check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e5c747746142c0d25d8674c0f3044c0",
"text": "\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \"\"sole proprietorship\"\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \"\"Zolani Enterprises\"\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \"\"Limited Liability Company\"\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \"\"avatar\"\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \"\"disregarded entity\"\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \"\"disregarded\"\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \"\"employee\"\" would get). Nothing can be \"\"retained\"\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \"\"own\"\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \"\"employee\"\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \"\"retained\"\" by the company, or paid out to members as \"\"dividends\"\", is \"\"profit\"\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \"\"distribution\"\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \"\"members\"\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3690f57050d3a70467bddf10e4f5f4c",
"text": "\"It might be best to step back and look at the core information first. You're evaluating an LLC vs a Corporation (both corporate entities). Both have one or more members, and both are seen similarly (emphasis on SIMILAR here, they're not all the same) to the IRS. Specifically, LLC's can opt for a pass-through tax system, basically seen by the IRS the same way an S-Corp is. Put another way, you can be taxed as a corporate entity, or it's P/L statements can \"\"flow through\"\" to your personal taxes. When you opt for a flow-through, the business files and you get a separate schedule to tie into your taxes. You should also look at filing a business expense schedule (Schedule C) on your taxes to claim legitimate business expenses (good reference point here). While there are several differences (see this, and this, and this) between these entities, the best determination on which structure is best for you is usually if you have full time employ while you're running the business. S corps limit shares, shareholders and some deductions, but taxes are only paid by the shareholders. C corps have employees, no restrictions on types or number of stock, and no restrictions on the number of shareholders. However, this means you would become an employee of your business (you have to draw monies from somewhere) and would be subject to paying taxes on your income, both as an individual, and as a business (employment taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, etc). From the broad view of the IRS, in most cases an LLC and a Corp are the same type of entity (tax wise). In fact, most of the differences between LLCs and Corps occur in how Profits/losses are distributed between members (LLCs are arbitrary to a point, and Corps base this on shares). Back to your question IMHO, you should opt for an LLC. This allows you to work out a partnership with your co-worker, and allows you to disburse funds in a more flexible manner. From Wikipedia : A limited liability company with multiple members that elects to be taxed as partnership may specially allocate the members' distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit via the company operating agreement on a basis other than the ownership percentage of each member so long as the rules contained in Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) 1.704-1 are met. S corporations may not specially allocate profits, losses and other tax items under US tax law. Hope this helps, please do let me know if you have further questions. As always, this is not legal or tax advice, just what I've learned in setting several LLCs and Corporate structures up over the years. EDIT: As far as your formulas go, the tax rate will be based upon your personal income, for any pass through entity. This means that the same monies earned from and LLC or an S-corp, with the same expenses and the same pass-through options will be taxed the same. More reading: LLC and the law (Google Group)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d9bdb78150f5089baeab672332d02d2",
"text": "Federal income taxes are indeed expenses, they're just not DEDUCTIBLE expenses on your 1120. Federal Income Tax Expense is usually a subcategory under Taxes. This is one of the items that will be a book-to-tax difference on Schedule M-1. I am presuming you are talking about a C corporation, as an S corporation is not likely to be paying federal taxes itself, but would pass the liability through to the members. If you're paying your personal 1040 taxes out of an S-corporation bank account, that's an owner's draw just like paying any of your personal non-business expenses. I would encourage you to get a tax professional to prepare your corporate tax returns. It's not quite as simple as TurboTax Business makes it out to be. ;) Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d86ebab266bf0a5d9f55be7a5222389",
"text": "I am assuming this is USA. While it is a bit of a pain, you are best off to have separate accounts for your business and personal. This way, if it comes to audit, you hand the IRS statements for your business account(s) and they match your return. As a further precaution I would have the card(s) you use for business expenses look different then the ones you use for personal so you don't mess another one up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0c51eea3ded591cacec119ff328abda",
"text": "Payment of taxes for your personal return filed with the IRS always come from your personal account, regardless of how the money was earned. Sales tax would be paid from your business account, so would corporate taxes, if those apply; but if you're talking about your tax payments to the IRS for your personal income that should be paid from your personal account. Also, stating the obvious, if you're paying an accountant to handle things you can always ask them for clarification as well. They will have more precise answers. EDIT Adding on for your last part of the question I missed: In virtually all cases LLC's are what's called a pass through entity. For these entities, all income in the eyes of the federal government passes directly through the entity to the owners at the end of each year. They are then taxed personally on this net income at their individual tax rate, that's the very abridged version at least. The LLC pays no taxes directly to the federal government related to your income. Here's a resource if you'd like to learn more about LLC's: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "765e60af2e9d1a54d09edc1026346916",
"text": "\"According to IRS Publication 1635, Understanding your EIN (PDF), under \"\"What is an EIN?\"\" on page 2: Caution: An EIN is for use in connection with your business activities only. Do not use your EIN in place of your social security number (SSN). As you say your EIN is for your business as a sole proprietor, I would also refer to Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business, under \"\"Identification Numbers\"\": Social security number (SSN). Generally, use your SSN as your taxpayer identification number. You must put this number on each of your individual income tax forms, such as Form 1040 and its schedules. Employer identification number (EIN). You must also have an EIN to use as a taxpayer identification number if you do either of the following. Pay wages to one or more employees. File pension or excise tax returns. If you must have an EIN, include it along with your SSN on your Schedule C or C-EZ as instructed. While I can't point to anything specifically about bank accounts, in general the guidance I see is that your SSN is used for your personal stuff, and you have an EIN for use in your business where needed. You may be able to open a bank account listing the EIN as the taxpayer identification number on the account. I don't believe there's a legal distinction between what makes something a \"\"business\"\" account or not, though a bank may have different account offerings for different purposes, and only offer some of them to entities rather than individuals. If you want to have a separate account for your business transactions, you may want them to open it in the name of your business and they may allow you to use your EIN on it. Whether you can do this for one of their \"\"personal\"\" account offerings would be up to the bank. I don't see any particular advantages to using your EIN on a bank account for an individual, though, and I could see it causing a bit of confusion with the bank if you're trying to do so in a way that isn't one of their \"\"normal\"\" account types for a business. As a sole proprietor, there really isn't any distinction between you and your business. Any interest income is taxable to you in the same way. But I don't think there's anything stopping you legally other than perhaps your particular bank's policy on such things. I would suggest contacting your bank (or trying several banks) to get more information on what account offerings they have available and what would best fit you and your business's needs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae5066c9a5bc07ef196332219cdba89b",
"text": "\"I'm no lawyer and no expert, so take my remarks as entertainment only. Also see this question. If you have a U.S. SSN which is eligible for work, they may be able to pay you on 1099 basis with your SSN as a sole proprietor, unless they have some personal reason for avoiding that. So perhaps try asking about that specifically. HR policies can be weird and tricky, maybe a nudge in the right direction will help. Not What You Asked: regardless, I might recommend you register as an LLC and get an EIN (sort of SSN for companies) for a variety of reasons. It's called a \"\"limited liability\"\" company for a reason. You may also have an easier time reaping various business-related rewards, like writing off expenses. If you do so, consider a state with no income tax like Wyoming. (Or, for convenience sake, WA if you live in BC, or maybe NH if you live in Ontario.. etc.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "692ae1c3e6eb2eca7e42bcebfcb1293a",
"text": "Mods decided to leave it here, so I'll summarize some of my answers on this question given @OnStartups. You can find them here, here and here. Your options are : You and your business are one and the same. You report your income and expenses for taxes on a Schedule C (for each sole proprietorship a separate schedule), and taxed at your personal rates. There's no liability protection or legal separation between you and your business, and you don't need to have any bureaucratic overhead of managing an entity. You can use your own bank account and have checks written to you directly. You can register for DBA if you want a store-front name to be different from your own name. Depending on State, can cost a lot or close to nothing. Provides certain liability protection (depending on State, single-member and multi-member LLC's may have different liability protections). You can chose to be taxed as either a sole-proprietor (partnership, for multi-member) or as a corporation. You have to separate your activities, have a separate bank account, and some minimal bureaucracy is required to maintain the entity. Benefits include the limited liability, relatively easy to add partners to the business or sell it as a whole, and provides for separation of your personal and business finances. Drawbacks - bureaucracy, additional fees and taxes (especially in CA), and separation of assets. Corporation is an entirely separate entity from yourself, files its own tax returns, has separate bank accounts and is run by the board of directors (which in some cases may require more than 1 person to be on the board, check your state laws on that). As an officer of the corporation you'll have to pay salary to yourself. S-Corp has the benefit of pass-through taxation, C-Corp doesn't and has double taxation. Benefits - liability protection, can sell shares to investors, legally distinct entity. Disadvantages - have to deal with payroll, additional accounting, significant bureaucracy and additional layer of taxes for C-Corp (double taxation). Selling corporate assets is always a taxable event (although in your case it is probably not of an importance). You have to talk to a lawyer in your state about the options re the liability protection and how to form the entities. The formation process is usually simple and straight forward, but the LLC/Partnership operating agreements and Corporation charters/bylaws must be drafted by a lawyer if you're not going to be the sole owner (even if you are - better get a lawyer draft something for you, its just easier to fix and change things when you're the sole owner). You have to talk to a CPA/EA in your state about the taxes and how the choice of entity affects them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e23eda4b8b64a62749c8eb12447ab724",
"text": "\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3536cc618e291ed7fa8cd499d035587",
"text": "I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15ad22bcdc1ba71d64e2cdba622599e3",
"text": "Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fd6d379a23acdd8369d63e87fb51d0e",
"text": "You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4f0cee73fd9e77b3ee7ea540d4a528f1
|
tax deduction for 30k loan
|
[
{
"docid": "7128dd586eef8101003e79d791cd59d9",
"text": "The loan itself is not tax deductible; unless you took it as part of a mortgage, anyway, it's just a regular loan. Mortgage and Student Loan Interest deductions are special cases explicitly given tax-deductible status; other loans are not deductible (unless part of a business expense or other qualifying reason). If this were a short sale (which you note it was not but included for completeness' sake), and some of your debt was cancelled, that may have tax implications. You cannot take a capital loss on your personal residence, so the loss itself is not deductible.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "78b8209c5b2239617da310d8d7a2e25a",
"text": "\"Most likely that's the amount of interest that accrued on the loan while you were in school. If you had paid that amount before 6/21, you would have just paid off accrued interest and your loan balance would have stayed the same. Since you did not pay the interest, it will be added to your loan balance and you will just pay it off as part of the loan (plus compounded interest). If you pay off your loan at 5% over 30 years (hopefully you won't, but that's what they're amortized for), that $350 will compound and become $1,563. Essentially you're \"\"borrowing\"\" $350 at 5% interest for 30 years. Hopefully that motivates you to pay it off sooner that that...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22f025f3845889d3cc252261cb9cc829",
"text": "I will add one point missing from the answers by CQM and THEAO. When you take a loan and invest the proceeds, the interest that you pay on the loan is deductible on Schedule A, Line 14 of your Federal income tax return under the category of Investment Interest Expense. If the interest expense is larger than all your investment earnings (not just those from the loan proceeds), then you can deduct at most the amount of the earnings, and carry over the excess investment interest paid this year for deduction against investment earnings in future years. Also, if some of the earnings are long-term capital gains and you choose to deduct the corresponding investment interest expense, then those capital gains are taxed as ordinary income instead of at the favored LTCG rate. You also have the option of choosing to deduct only that amount of interest that offsets dividend (and short-term capital gain) income that is taxed at ordinary rates, pay tax at the LTCG rate on the capital gains, and carry over rest of the interest for deduction in future years. In previous years when the tax laws called for reduction in the Schedule A deductions for high-income earners, this investment interest expense was exempt from the reduction. Whether future tax laws will allow this exemption depends on Congress. So, this should be taken into account when dealing with the taxes issue in deciding whether to take a loan to invest in the stock market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "436d904961c3151d719d57448dbd71e6",
"text": "When discussing buying a home I often hear people say they like having a mortgage because they get the benefit of writing off the interest. I assume this is the United States. You need to also consider that many people can take the standard deduction of about $12k for married couples filing jointly, so even if they itemize the interest, it would only make sense to 'write it off' if you are able to itemize deductions greater than the standard deduction: Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/31/irs-announces-2014-tax-brackets-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/ So some people will input the mortgage interest and other related deductions into the computer only to find out that their itemized deductions don't add up. Where it benefits people sometimes is if they have medical bills which are greater than 10% of their income in addition to the mortgage interest. So it benefits them to itemize. There are other major sources of itemization but medical bills are very common. Other common items are auto registration taxes or interest from student loans. It is going to be situation dependent, but if you are within a few years of paying off the mortgage it would make sense to make micropayments to accelerate the payoff date. If you have 30 years to go, it would make more sense to generate an emergency fund, pay off a car, or save up for other things in life than worry about paying off a mortgage. Take the benefit of deducting the mortgage interest if you can, but I imagine that many people would be surprised to hear that it's not always black and white.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83aaeb5d21bd925e668810e5d9e80f2a",
"text": "\"I'm not familiar with the law and taxes in India but can provide guidance based on general accounting and tax principles. You are right that receiving money as a loan is not income and isn't liable to income tax. Therefore i suggest you actually formalise this loan through a written contract with your friend. The contract should include all the usual elements of a loan: amount, interest (even if preferential or zero), principal, term, consequences of default and currency of loan. You can then simply state the purpose of transfer as \"\"Personal Loan Agreement\"\". If you have such a document and are questioned by tax authorities you can easily show that the inward remittance is from a loan and should therefore be treated like any commercial loan for tax purposes. As long as you disclose the debt in your tax return (if required in India) and your friend discloses any interest received as income i think you'll be above board and won't be liable for any income tax. To make sure, you might be better off having a quick consultation with an accountant or tax specialist in India to advise you and draft the loan agreement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c875829da12c665c19f4d067ed09ecb1",
"text": "Imagine a married couple without a mortgage, but live in a house fully paid for. They pay state income taxes, and property tax, and make charitable deductions that together total $12,599. That is $1 below the standard deduction for 2015, therefore they don't itemize. Now they decide to get a mortgage: $100,000 for 30 years at 4%. That first year they pay about $4,000 in interest. Now it makes sense to itemize. That $4,000 in interest plus their other deductions means that if they are in the 25% bracket they cut their tax bill by $1,000. These numbers will decrease each year. If they have a use for that pile of cash: such as a new roof, or a 100% sure investment that is guaranteed make more money for them then they are losing in interest it makes sense. But spending $4,000 to save $1,000 doesn't. Using the pile of cash to pay off the new mortgage means that the bank is collecting $4,000 a year so you can send $1,000 less to Uncle Sam.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2860f12c36966891eb816cce27702fcc",
"text": "You need to report the interest expense, assuming the loans were for your business: You need to report interest expense (only interest, principle is not an expense just as the loan proceeds are not income). The interest expense goes to the appropriate line on your Schedule C or E (depending on whether you used the loan for the online business or the rental). People whom you borrowed from must also report the interest as income to them on their Schedule B. You cannot deduct the interest expense if they don't report it as interest income. If you didn't take the loans for your business then the interest is not deductible. You don't need to report anything. People who lent you money still have to report the interest you paid to them as income on Schedule B. If you paid no interest (free loan) or below/above market interest to a related party (family member), then the imputed interest is considered income to them and gift to you. They need to report it on their Schedule B, and depending on amounts - on a gift tax return. For $1K to $10K loans there probably will be no need in gift tax returns, the exemption is for $14K per year per person. If the imputed interest rules may apply to you, better talk to a licensed tax adviser on how to proceed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "552cf0cf29a72c23f41e4ca40e19724a",
"text": "At this time there is one advantage of having a 30 year loan right now over a 15 year loan. The down side is you will be paying 1% higher interest rate. So the question is can you beat 1% on the money you save every month. So Lets say instead of going with 15 year mortgage I get a 30 and put the $200 monthly difference in lets say the DIA fund. Will I make more on that money than the interest I am losing? My answer is probably yes. Plus lets factor in inflation. If we have any high inflation for a few years in the middle of that 30 not only with the true value of what you owe go down but the interest you can make in the bank could be higher than the 4% you are paying for your 30 year loan. Just a risk reward thing I think more people should consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "309cfe3599915bf4a193f66e589a27ef",
"text": "\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdf2d38a190b567b108a45c6335bdf81",
"text": "I'm a Finance major in Finland and here is how it would go here. As you loan money to the company, the company has no income, but gains an asset and a liability. When the company then uses the money to pay the bills it does have expenses that accumulate to the end of the accounting period where they have to be declared. These expenses are payed from the asset gained and has no effect to the liability. When the company then makes a profit it is taxable. How ever this taxable profit may be deducted from from a tax reserve accumulated over the last loss periods up to ten years. When the company then pays the loan back it is divided in principal and interest. The principal payment is a deduction in the company's liabilities and has no tax effect. The interest payment the again does have effect in taxes in the way of decreasing them. On your personal side giving loan has no effect. Getting the principal back has no effect. Getting interest for the loan is taxable income. When there are documents signifying the giving the loan and accounting it over the years, there should be no problem paying it back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "433e605acecb28e473e6135fbf242b06",
"text": "The biggest factor is: Are you really going to invest the difference? It is easy to say you will now, but unless you have a ton of discipline or some form of automatic investing, that is a hard thing to do in practice. Another consideration is that the 30 year loan will usually cost you more over the life of the loan because of the length of it. Another option is to take the 30 year loan and pay at the rate you would with a 15. Then you get the benefit of paying it down quickly, but have the flexibility to only make smaller than usual payments in any month where you have a financial emergency and need the extra cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a6a1cc1d2e2c0f93c0610323b1fe185",
"text": "\"(credits to Joe's answer above which alluded to what I was not considering) You aren't \"\"bypassing\"\" the tax liability if you invest in a home instead of, say, stocks. It's true stocks would be subject to tax during the year you cash in on them while the proceeds of a home equity loan would not affect your tax liability. HOWEVER, by taking on a new loan, you are liable for repayments. Those repayments would be made using your income from other sources, which IS taxable. So you can't avoid tax liability when financing your child's college education by using an equity line.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f469e2fa5ef685010cd4b8febf2dc799",
"text": "In 2015 there's a $5.43M (That's million, as in 6 zeros) estate exemption. Even though it's $14K per year with no paperwork required, if you go over this, a bit of paperwork will let you tap your lifetime exemption. There's no tax consequence from this. The Applicable Federal Rate is the minimum rate that must be charged for this to be considered a loan and not a gift. DJ's answer is correct, otherwise, and is worth knowing as there are circumstances where the strategy is applicable. If the OP were a high net worth client trying to save his estate tax exemption, this (Dj's) strategy works just fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7613eabc169fad3fafc9d947392f98d",
"text": "The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f20fdd823286eba26d5f938c45710cd2",
"text": "Talk to a tax professional. The IRS really doesn't like the deduction, and it's a concept (like independent contractors) that is often not done properly. You need to, at a minimum, have records, including timestamped photographs, proving that: Remember, documentation is key, and must be filed and accessible for a number of years. Poor record keeping will cost you dearly, and the cost of keeping those records is something that you need to weigh against the benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b239ecbe22ac4293f7f0df722ed82b8e",
"text": "You cannot deduct. Even if you could, unless you also hold the mortgage, it's unlikely that you would have sufficient deductions to exceed the standard deduction for a married couple.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8edbb4380bd860bfd8c9d6e8ed01371e
|
Do I need to pay tax on the amount of savings I have in the bank?
|
[
{
"docid": "a67587695f9738a60cc9cbc36950dd6b",
"text": "In India, assuming that you have already paid relevant [Income/Capital gains] tax and then deposited the funds into your Bank [Savings or Current] Account; there is NO INCOME tax payable for amount. Any interest earned on this amount is taxable as per Income Tax rules and would be taxed at your income slabs. Wealth Tax is exempt from funds in your Savings Account. I am not sure about the funds into Current Account of individual, beyond a limit they may get counted and become part of Wealth Tax. More details here http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/personal-finance/Do-you-have-to-pay-wealth-tax/articleshow/21444111.cms",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e9331a76e278ba1d653ff555a1b3eb1",
"text": "Not for the amount in the accounts but for the interest you earn per year is taxable. But the sum of your all taxable incomes is under the limit, then you dont need to pay any income tax. The limit is available at wiki here But you should intimate your bank not to deduct TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) by submitting Form 15G/15H (which will be normally available in Bank itself), provided your total interest income for the year will not fall within overall taxable limits. You may calculate your income tax amount at Official website at here",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2335c529b2a79cd1f83f13f9d7143e9a",
"text": "You can receive money directly into your savings bank account. It is perfectly legal. FYI the Bank as part of regulation would report this to RBI. As the funds are received for the services you have rendered, You are liable to pay tax on the income. The income is taxed as professional income similar to the income of Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants etc. If you are paying your colleagues, it would be treated as expense. Not only this, you can also treat any phone calls you make, or equipment your purchase [laptop, desk etc] as expense. The difference become your actual income and you would be taxed as per the rate for individuals. It's advisable you contact an accountant who would advise you better for a nominal fee [few thousand rupees] and help you pay the tax and file the returns. With or without accountant It is very important for you to record all payments and expenses in a book of accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cf21e874ace52095a9263cd6b1e72b3",
"text": "If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "643b5ec6cc31d91567eacdfab5789a3b",
"text": "No you will not be taxed for the money in account 2. You have already paid for the tax on the money saved. There is no interest earned on the amount and hence it is not taxed. In UK the interest on ISA [Individual Savings Account] is not taxable as well. Hence you may even transfer the money to account 2 that is an ISA and not a current account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "216b8cb6cd95ac9338e546a0f847f3d4",
"text": "\"Nothing stops you doing that, but there's no gain to be had by doing it. \"\"Removing it from being a tax liability\"\" isn't a single event that happens when you put money in an ISA. The money that actually goes into the ISA is post-tax income, not pre-tax income. The benefit you get is that as long as you leave your money in the ISA, you don't pay tax on interest or capital gains within the ISA. If you liquidate an ISA immediately after creation, you won't get any such interest and therefore no tax benefit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48b2fd3b012dabac3583f3775f1f943d",
"text": "If you are a US resident (not necessarily citizen) then yes, you do have to pay capital gains taxes on any capital gains, including interest from assets oversees (like interest from a savings account). Additionally you have to report all your foreign bank accounts according to FATCA (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bbc02e8e149b8c6083f39dadc7a7f52",
"text": "Interest earned over my saving only As you are Tax resident in UK, UK taxes Global income. So the interest earned in India is taxable. Further this is taxable when the interest was paid to you in India and it is not relevant whether you kept the funds in India or repatriated to UK. It is not clear in your question as to when the interest was credited to your Indian account. If its been for few years, you are in breach of the UK tax regulation. Consult a tax advisor how this can be corrected. If it is for this year, pay taxes as per normal tax brackets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "effc766ab2ff7ff0d8f339d421412be5",
"text": "But is the money saved taxable? Not sure I understand the Question. If say you have salary of Rs 5 Lacs, after paying taxes and expenses, lets say you save Rs 1 lacs. If you keep this 1 lacs in savings account. You will get interest. If this interest is less than Rs 10,000/- it is not taxable. If it is more that Rs 10,000 then the additional amount is taxable. i.e. if you get a savings bank interest of Rs 15,000/- the difference Rs 15,000 minus Rs 10,000; i.e. Rs 5000 is taxable. Note if you keep the 1 lacs in Fixed Deposits, then all interest even if you get Rs 1 is taxable. Edit: If you invest the Rs 1 lacs in Tax Saving FD [lock-in period of 6 years], then Yes. You can claim deduction under section 80C.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2fe749117d26a925f975f93acdcd93a",
"text": "\"For the financial year 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015, as you have [or will be] spent more than 182 days outside India, you would be treated as \"\"Non-Resident\"\" [NRI] for tax purposes. If you are NRI Show my Kuwaiti Income in my Income Tax Return? Pay any tax on the money that I am sending to savings bank accounts in India You need not Pay Tax on your income outside India. i.e. there is no tax obligation created. It cannot be declared in Tax Returns. However any interest you earn on the money deposited in India would be subject to taxes. Will my wife have to show the income and/or pay the income tax on the money that I am sending to her savings bank accounts? There is no Income to you wife [Income is something you earn] and hence its out of scope from Income Tax act. It would fall under gift tax rules. As per Gift Tax one can transfer unlimited funds between close relatives. Hence there is No tax. It would be better if you open an NRO/NRE account and transfer funds into that account\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf189271641d75f19f0cf7b1cee7524b",
"text": "\"The number one rule of thumb that will generally answer the \"\"is it taxable\"\" question for any money you may have or receive: \"\"Did you pay taxes on it already?\"\". Pretty much any money you actually get in your paycheck/DD has already been taxed (or at least the projected amount of tax has been withheld) is your money, to dispense with as you will (or according to your pre-arranged obligations, for most of it). Deposits paid are one such example; if you wrote a check or obtained a money order that they then cashed, that's still your money until it isn't; the contract states that it is being held effectively in escrow (though the landlord has free use of it so long as he can pony up according to the contract). Anything not used to pay for damages is yours, and you get it back. The ATM fee refund is trickier, but basically this is a benefit offered to you as a service by your bank. You front for the ATM fees incurred when withdrawing, and then those fees are refunded to you by your bank (effectively increasing the number of ATMs you can withdraw from \"\"for free\"\"). As long as there is no net income, it's treated like a mail-in rebate; you didn't gain any money, so there's nothing new to tax. There are a couple of specific exceptions to this otherwise overarching rule of thumb. One is Roth IRAs. Typically, on investments, you either pay income tax on the money going in and capital gains tax on the money coming out, or you pay nothing going in and income tax coming out. With a Roth, however, you pay income tax going in and nothing coming out, even though you're (eventually) getting back more than you put in. Another is gifts. Whoever gave you the gift paid the taxes on it (or the money to buy it). However, if they give you a gift valued more than a certain limit (changes every year, and there's a lifetime limit), they have to pay an additional gift tax of 35% on any amount over the limit. That's taxing taxed income (usually). There are other examples, but for the overwhelming majority of situations, if it's money you already had after any and all applicable taxes, it's not taxable even if you haven't seen that money for a while.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05b5668a792f490a1eda8dc402f8125e",
"text": "\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \"\"allowable expense\"\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd6ce64eefa4d2b7264666b64e901b34",
"text": "In the general case if you have income coming in from a foreign source you need to declare it on your Canadian tax form, and nominally pay tax on it. However Canada has a tax agreement with the UK to ensure that you are not taxed twice. You also declare how much tax you have paid to the UK, and that is deducted from your Canadian tax bill. You may need to consult a tax professional, or maybe just read the Revenue Canada website to get the details. If you are holding this money for a friend, then you may find that this does not count as income to you. If you are getting it transferred to you in Canada, and then immediately passed on to your friend, it probably doesn't count as income (though again a tax professional will probably be helpful). This would mean you don't have to pay Canadian tax. But it's also a bummer because you've paid UK tax, which you might also have avoided, and you can't get that back without a lot of form filling. If this is going to be an ongoing situation, and the amount is significant, then you might look at getting your friend's money (and any you have in a UK account yourself) transferred to an offshore account, where UK tax is not automatically deducted. Most UK banks will do this for non-UK residents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5bbbf00ed8e7b0c39a7ece90572ef56",
"text": "I know that if you make more, you pay more, but do those who have more, not make more, pay higher income tax? In general, no. In most locales, income tax is based on income, not on wealth. I am retired. I have little income but a fair amount of wealth. I play very little income tax. (But I do pay other kinds of taxes.) Here's a scenario. 2 people of average wealth with similar situations have the same job with equal pay. After 5 years, their situations haven't changed and they still earn equal pay, but now one has $40,000 in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because he makes the same? In most locales, you pay income tax on everything that is counted as income. Your salary is income. In some cases, earned interest is income. But aside from the earned interest from your bank accounts, neither the $40,000 nor the $9,000 is income. Your huge mansion isn't income. Your expensive car isn't income. The huge amount of land you own isn't income. The pricey artwork on your walls isn't income. You don't pay income tax on any of these, but your local may impose other taxes on these (such as property tax, etc.) [Note: consult the tax laws of your specific locale if you want to know details.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "961a56e539bb9e4e246cf1fd5446db5c",
"text": "The money in the checking account was already taxed. It was income this year or last, or a gift from somebody, or earned interest that will be taxed. If it was a deductible IRA you would declare it next April and get a refund from the government.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fccf2c362ccdc6e673a1f0f6bb4650b",
"text": "\"I think the key point that's making the other commenters misunderstand each other here is the concept of \"\"deductions\"\". I can only speak for the UK, but that's only a concept that business owners would understand in this country. For things like child credits or low income tax credits, we don't get paid them at the end of the tax year, but into our bank accounts every couple of weeks all year round. Therefore, we have nothing to \"\"deduct\"\". If we work for a company and have business expenses, then the company pays for them. If we make interest on our savings, the bank pays it for us. We make money at our jobs, and the employer works out what taxes and national insurance we owe, based on a tax code that the government works out for us annually (which we can challenge). To be fair, it's not like we're free from bureaucracy if we want to claim these benefits. There are often lots of forms if you want child benefit or disability allowances, for instance. We just apply as soon as we're eligible, rather than waiting to get a lump sum rebate. So it appears to be a very different system, and neither is inherently better than the other (though I'm personally glad I don't usually have to fill in a big tax return myself, which I only did one year when I was self employed). I'd be interested to know, since Google has let me down, which countries use the American system, and which the British or Czech.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6943459f57d8925a7059538826bd4a73",
"text": "If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all. You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange. CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise. The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn. The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit. If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b32b27ae9be421e36a26a15be3367ae1
|
Where to categorize crypto-currencies
|
[
{
"docid": "1951fc9ac20beeb7cd1e29922454d7ce",
"text": "\"Forex. I will employ my skill for \"\"suspension of disbelief\"\" and answer with no visceral reaction to Bitcoin itself. The Euro is not an 'investment.' It's a currency. People trade currencies in order to capture relative movements between pairs of currencies. Unlike stocks, that have an underlying business and potential for growth (or failure, of course) a currency trade is a zero sum game, two people on opposite sides of a bet. Bitcoin has no underlying asset either, no stock, no commodity. It trades, de facto, like a currency, and for purposes of objective classification, it would be considered a currency, and held similar to any Forex position.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "201879ebc9892ec649a92f8e1e2abb26",
"text": "That doesn't make it the perfect medium for theft. The system makes it okay to make non controversial items because its not like someone is going to put in the effort to track you for that. Yet if you are buying something illicit, a large part of the blockchain can already be analyzed to see where stuff is coming from and they can start dective work from there. For example, let's say you buy off Local Bitcoin. Well even if the FBI doesn't know your address or who it belongs to, they monitor the site and know that the funds came from a certain account. They know this because that certain someone bought coins from a regulated company. Its not the perfect medium for theft at all. Do you actually research bitcoin or are you just looking for any reason not to like it? Its really much more complex/grand than most make it out to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecb089e03de5c97a18620bac7f5006e7",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://hackernoon.com/cryptoeconomics-paving-the-future-of-blockchain-technology-13b04dab971?source=linkShare-2ce646a74d1c-1500791146) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** > When you dig deep enough into the concepts underlying blockchain technology and specific systems built on it, you will find that they heavily incorporate cryptoeconomic tools specifically designed to minimize the impact of evildoers and hostile actors. > Cryptoeconomic Assumptions of BehaviorThe exciting thing about cryptoeconomics is that its terminology and theory are being pioneered day-by-day by blockchain developers and thought leaders. > To underscore the cutting-edge innovation within this field, some of the terms associated with cryptoeconomics have less than 100 results when googled at the time of writing! While many of the ideas in this area are very theoretical, rest assured that their application will have incredible consequences on the development and adoption of blockchain technology. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6p2tm0/cryptoeconomics_paving_the_future_of_blockchain/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~173828 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*: **cryptoeconomic**^#1 **Bitcoin**^#2 **attack**^#3 **protocol**^#4 **blockchain**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9b2ef38d9bed2f93f7f404506dfbee4",
"text": "Regulated vs unregulated crypto makes sense - it seems like it's easier for government officials to simply enforce a blanket restriction on cryptocurrency transactions of all kinds than bother to make the distinctions between different types. I expect China's shutdown will be the first of many in terms of national governments on cryptocurrency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd7cca078aeb10e6c4dd0b7e900bdeb8",
"text": "This is a long [article](https://www.bcg.com/blockchain/thinking-outside-the-blocks.html?linkId=32278919&utm_content=buffer1d4c7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=pinterest.com&utm_campaign=buffer) written by some leaders from the Boston Consulting Group. It is worth the read; however, based on your comment, I think the biggest piece to pay attention to is this [graph](http://i.imgur.com/q0SPYVQ.png) which does an excellent job of showing the layers from blockchain to app. For clarity, Bitcoin is a blockchain, and is also the name of the currency for that blockchain, Ethereum is a blockchain and uses Ether as its currency. Given the structure of Ethereum it allows for apps and services to be built on top of its blockchain, such as the [Golem Network](https://golem.network/) which uses its own currency for its specific ecosystem known as [Golem Token](https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/golem-network-tokens/).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8793f001dbcf6f8b83d7d5ab4769e11",
"text": "All governments need to do is figure out how to monitor, regulate and tax whenever BTC (or any crypto) is converted into dollars or merchandise. The public ledger doesn't have names associated with it, but it does have public keys, which can be used to determine what other transactions have taken place that might not have been reported and how much crypto is in that wallet? I agree with Ballsy12, there could be a dark side to crypto that we're not paying attention to because we're all so excited about the money we're making, but it's only money if we can spend it, and that's where it starts to get concerning. Every transaction recorded is a bean counters wet dream.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b45f748a0c31dd76eb6f670978f51320",
"text": "Fist money does not have legal tender. And technically there are thousands of people willing to fight for bitcoin, who can be seen as an army so in that logic bitcoin has some intrinsic value. But both don't have intrinsic value. Most sources on the internet I can find agree with that. Wikipedia, investopedia and many others. Not that money needs intrinsic value. If the market value is 1000 times above the intrinsic value then the intrinsic value is not even relevant. But 1000 * 0 = 0 and the intrinsic value of the dollar itself (not coins) will always be 0. Same for the EUR and then YUAN.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51a6ca6a32a72b6063be3ac0e7c42d47",
"text": "\"Alright, so this is all out of the way. As a further note, I have a degree in computer science so I'm not oblivious to the technical aspects of bitcoin. I reject the idea that banning bitcoin is akin to banning the internet - in fact, I reject the notion that bitcoin is anywhere as revolutionary as \"\"the internet\"\" was (which itself, as a construct, is far older than most people let on). I've always acknowledged that there are many innovative technical aspects to bitcoin which are likely to find their way into our current system of money and transactions. The reality, however, goes back to my original contentions - that bitcoin is difficult (if not nearly impossible) to track, and thus serves as a black-market vehicle for those who wish to transact outside the power of the government. Whether or not you see this as \"\"good\"\" or \"\"bad\"\" doesn't matter; \"\"the government\"\" within any defined national border is the plenary power - period - and thus (for lack of a better phrase) \"\"resistance is mostly futile.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ebe64ae34acfabbb767ba96a5b00dc0",
"text": "If the vendor accepts cryptocurrencies, this may be your only option. It's not clear if exporting cryptocurrency violates Ethiopian law, but at least cryptocurrencies have not yet been banned. If you can find someone who can trade you cryptocurrency, you can send it anywhere. Because cryptocurrencies are still extremely price volatile, I recommend you use Ripple, the fastest I can find. It can 100% confirm transactions on average within 10 seconds. This will keep your exposure to price volatility at a minimum if you send the cryptocurrency as soon as you buy it. If you choose this route, please take precausions. Your government may retroactively ban it and pursue you. Considering the Ethiopian government's history, this is not unlikely, and banning cryptocurrencies outright is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e3c8da73cfebc2e9766cc39a64caaf9",
"text": "It's already happening. Cryptocurrencies are your friend in this case. The other day I was on a torrent website which replaced ads with Monero based Captcha. I believe the website was using my CPU power to mine small amount Monero for themselves. If this is true, you won't need ads. Revenue will come straight from mining cryptos using the consumer's CPU.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5cb9014490f54e93bdd3c759e17a493",
"text": "Granted, currencies don't have intrinsic value. Cryptocurrency is worse than government currencies in a few ways: - it costs real resources to produce - no institution keeps values stable - values are volatile in practice In those respects, crypto is more similar to a precious metal than a currency. Except it's worse than precious metals too, as metals have some intrinsic value. Crypto won't be able to overcome these disadvantages to compete with government-issued currencies in the long term. It might compete with gold long term. There are a lot of nuts and gold bugs in the world, and crypto might live on in that fringe space.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe6bfcafa9fe332c03b44fbb3d4bc8e3",
"text": "You won't hear me calling crypto a safe haven as such. The local price volatility is more than most people can handle. And it takes a level of tech savvy to be able to separate facts from nonsense. By my personal analysis, Ethereum (ETH) would be the safest crypto investment by far. Bitcoin (BTC) is also surprisingly resilient in terms of value, but has been deprecated on multiple levels at this point, so it seems quite overvalued (or Ethereum undervalued for that matter). The rest of crypto can probably best be compared to investing in startups. High risk, high reward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a37f6d49f503c2f398792f367fbfce6d",
"text": "Cryptocurrency investments. Got lucky and turned 1k into 50k in a month. 25k given to me from family members and 25k saved from working. I have a college degree btw. I just can't use it because i have deeprooted anxiety issues keeping me underemployed. Anyway 100k isn't a lot. I can't even buy a house and can barely even get a downpayment where i live and i wouldn't come close to being able to pay my mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bffe90d075b52449ec5d91e29289f36",
"text": "\"Firstly you have to know exactly what you are asking here. What you have if you \"\"own\"\" bitcoins is a private key that allows you to make a change to the blockchain that can assign a piece of information from yourself to the next person. Nothing more nothing less. The fact that this small piece of information is considered to have a market value, is a matter of opinion, and is analagous to owning a domain name. A domain name is an entry in a register, that has equal weight to all other entries, but the market determines if that information (eg: CocaCola.com) has any more value than say another less well know domain. Bitcoin is the same - an entry in a register, and the market decides which entry is more valuable than another. So what exactly are you wanting to declare to FinCEN? Are you willing to declare the ownership of private key? Of course not. So what then? An uncrackable private key can be generated at will by anyone, without even needing to \"\"own\"\" or transact in bitcoins, and that same private key would be equally valid on any of the 1000's of other bitcoin clones. The point I want to make is that owning a private key in itself is not valuable. Therefore you do not need, nor would anyone advise notifying FinCEN of that fact. To put this into context, every time you connect to online banking, your computer secretly generates a new random private key to secure your communications with the bank. Theoretically that same private key could also be used to sign a bitcoin transaction. Do you need to declare every private key your computer generates? No. Secondly, if you are using any of the latest generation of HD wallets, your private key changes with every single transaction. Are you seriously saying that you want to take it on your shoulders to inform FinCEN every time you move information (bitcoin amounts) around even in your own wallets? The fact is FinCEN could never \"\"discover\"\" your ownership of bitcoins (or any of the 1000s of alt coins) other than by you informing them of this fact. You may want to carefully consider the personal implications of starting down this road especially as all FinCEN would need to do is subpoena your bitcoin private key to steal your so-called funds, as they have done recently to other more prominent persons in the community. EDIT to clarify the points raised in comments. You do not own the private key to the bitcoins stored on a foreign exchange, nor can you discover it. The exchange owns the private key. You therefore do not either technically have control over the coins (MtGox is a very good example here - they went out of business because they allowed their private keys to be used by some other party who was able to siphon off the coins). Your balance is only yours when you own the private keys and the ability to spend. Any other situation you can neither recover the bitcoin to sell (to pay for any taxes due). So you do not either have the legal right nor the technical right to consider those coins in your possession. For those who do not understand the technical or legal implications of private key ownership, please do not speculate about what \"\"owning\"\" bitcoin actually means, or how ownership can be discovered. Holding Bitcoin is not illegal, and the US government who until recently were the single largest holder of Bitcoin demonstrate simply by this fact alone that there is nothing untoward here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97d5af46b971eae008c61bce2217c2f2",
"text": "SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | Как можно быстро заработать Биткоин? Майнинг Сатошей Bitcoin. Сайты по заработку криптовалюты 2017 Description | ¦ Ссылка на регистрацию в проектах: | Elitemining: https://goo.gl/a1UEKz | Cryptostar: https://goo.gl/fQdECh =========================================== ¦ Бинарные опционы Олимп Трейд https://goo.gl/DKryBH ====== Вступайте в Мою команду! =============== ¦? Моя группа https://vk.com/criptovaluta2016 ====== Как связаться со мной =============== ¦? Я в VK №1: https://vk.com/a.alex81 ¦? Я в Одноклассниках: https://ok.ru/alex6373 ¦? Я в Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Alex6373 ¦? Мой Skype: samara... Length | 0:04:36 **** ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c2b955bf4fa0ba14e8f6a07cb47818f",
"text": "Actually, I misspoke. Arcade City doesn't use crypto. It just connects riders and drivers and lets them work out the payment on their own. There is an offshoot of Arcade City called Swarm City that does use crypto but it's only in the early development stages. There is a ton happening in the cryptocurrency space right now. Lots of really complex applications and development platforms - it's no longer just about funds transfer. If you are interested, here's a list of 1100 active projects: https://coinmarketcap.com/ On each project's detail page you'll find a link to its web site for further info.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e771ed39982803c289cd7cb0aacd3a75
|
How smart is it really to take out a loan right now?
|
[
{
"docid": "9000b94ce73103322b8f7a9335d6b9c8",
"text": "but I can't help but feel that these low rates are somehow a gimmick to trick people into taking out loans Let me help you: it's not a feeling. That's exactly what it is. Since the economy is down, people don't want to jeopardize what they have, and keep the cash in their wallets. But, while keeping the money safe in the pocket, it makes the economy even worse. So in order to make people spend some money, the rates go down so that the cost of money is lower. It also means that the inflation will be on the rise, which is again a reason not to keep money uninvested. So yes, the rates are now very low, and the housing market is a buyers' market, so it does make sense to take out a loan at this time (provided of course that you can actually repay it over time, and don't take loans you can't handle). Of course, you shouldn't be taking loans just because the rates are low. But if you were already planning on purchasing a house - now would be a good time to go on with that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8a00a0ac0f4aaa1ed206d89b155f190",
"text": "Yes, it's a buyer's market. If one is looking to buy a house, comparing the cost to rent vs own is a start. Buying a property to rent to a stranger is a different issue altogether, it's a business like any other, it takes time and has risk. If today, one has a decent downpayment (20%) and plans to stay in the house for some time, buying may make economic sense. But it's never a no-brainer. One needs to understand that housing can go down as well as up, and also understand all the expenses of owning which aren't so obvious. Ever increasing property tax, repairs, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c074e41e3cb931ec2dfbfc915fdbe0e",
"text": "\"The logic \"\"the interest rate on the mortgage was so low it didn't make sense not to buy\"\" is one reason the housing bubble happened. The logic was that it made the house affordable even at high prices. Once the prices collapsed people still had affordable payments, but were unable to sell because they were upside down on the mortgage. If you can refinance to a 15-year mortgage, or from a adjustable mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. it can make sense. You can save on the monthly payment, and on the total cost of the mortgage. But don't buy to take advantage of rates; or to save on taxes; or to build a guaranteed equity. These can be false economies or things that can't be gaurenteed. Of course if nobody spends money, the economy will stay poor. As to hidden details. Only purchase housing you want to own for the long haul. If you expect to flip it in a few years, you might not be able to. You might end up stuck as a long distance landlord.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1707e391b50fb6601344bdb077f3ff93",
"text": "I think it's smart. It's the same game, just stiffer regulations, so your lender will ask more from you. Buy if you... If someone has been saving for years and years and still can't put 20% down, I think they're taking a significant risk. Buy something where your mortgage payment is around one week's salary at most. Try to buy only what you can afford to live in if you lost your job and couldn't find work for 3-6 months. You might want to do a 30-yr fixed instead of a 15-yr if you're worried about cash-flow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "739db29878aca072f67ad3a13df5af3d",
"text": "Are things getting better yet or are things still a mess? I have heard people say that right now is a 'good' time to take out a loan, and that it is a buyer's market in real estate. Something to consider here is what intentions do you have for the real estate you'd buy. If you intend to sell quickly, then selling into a buyer's market doesn't sound like a great idea. While real estate may be cheap, there can be the question of how long do you think this will last? How much of a burden on time and energy are you expecting to take if you do switch residences or buy an investment property? But more specifically, are there any hidden details that come with taking a loan out when interest rates are low that I should be aware of? I'd be careful to note if the rate is fixed for the entire length of the loan or does it adjust over time. If it can adjust then there is the possibility of those adjustments going up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dd66282abc2576d2df51f5815fca851",
"text": "\"You are not \"\"the economy\"\". The economy is just the aggregate of what is going on with everyone else. You should make the decision based on your own situation now and projected into the future as best you can. Loan rates ARE at historical lows, so it is a great time to take a loan if you actually need one for some reason. However, I wouldn't go looking for a loan just because the rates are low for the same reason it doesn't make sense to buy maternity clothes if you are a single guy just because they are on sale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05f65e79d17fa5283838c5212626126e",
"text": "so this is a loan for a house? a loan on a house? a new mortgage? you shouldn't just get a loan for the hell of it any time. interests rates are low because the yields on US treasuries have been pushed closer to zero, and thats pretty much that. the risk is on the bank that approves the loan, and not you. (your ability to repay should be truthful, but your payments are smaller because the interest is so low)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7c79b64e3f2aa98865def2c68e6e07b6",
"text": "Does this plan make sense mathematically? - No not really. The housing market can be fairly volatile (depending on your location), and it is really a good market for buying right now. You're going to make 1 or 2% on your money over the next year and risk paying 10% more for the house (or more). Even if you had a loan at 5% - that would be 5% of what you still owe, not the full value of the house. Does it make sense in terms of the common rules about paying a mortgage off early? - Yes, though make sure you have at least 80% of the house value so you don't get nailed with PMI (which may have a fixed duration). Is there a better strategy that I am overlooking? - Yes, investigate buying a house now. I'm not saying rush into it - shop around and find a really good deal. Get a 15-year mortgage (or less) and put what you're able to down (maybe 80% down). You can then payoff the mortgage over the next year or two and not have the risk of the volatility of the market raising the prices on houses and you getting less for your money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "522126a55f542900e3ee89f63cfd3395",
"text": "\"Given the current low interest rates - let's assume 4% - this might be a viable option for a lot of people. Let's also assume that your actual interest rate after figuring in tax considerations ends up at around 3%. I think I am being pretty fair with the numbers. Now every dollar that you save each month based on the savings and invest with a higher net return of greater than 3% will in fact be \"\"free money\"\". You are basically betting on your ability to invest over the 3%. Even if using a conservative historical rate of return on the market you should net far better than 3%. This money would be significant after 10 years. Let's say you earn an average of 8% on your money over the 10 years. Well you would have an extra $77K by doing interest only if you were paying on average of $500 a month towards interest on a conventional loan. That is a pretty average house in the US. Who doesn't want $77K (more than you would have compared to just principal). So after 10 years you have the same amount in principal plus $77k given that you take all of the saved money and invest it at the constraints above. I would suggest that people take interest only if they are willing to diligently put away the money as they had a conventional loan. Another scenario would be a wealthier home owner (that may be able to pay off house at any time) to reap the tax breaks and cheap money to invest. Pros: Cons: Sidenote: If people ask how viable is this. Well I have done this for 8 years. I have earned an extra 110K. I have smaller than $500 I put away each month since my house is about 30% owned but have earned almost 14% on average over the last 8 years. My money gets put into an e-trade account automatically each month from there I funnel it into different funds (diversified by sector and region). I literally spend a few minutes a month on this and I truly act like the money isn't there. What is also nice is that the bank will account for about half of this as being a liquid asset when I have to renegotiate another loan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3188ba3af58c8955a687b494fcb5883d",
"text": "\"I strongly doubt your numbers, but lets switch the question around anyway. Would you borrow 10k on your house to buy stocks on leverage? That's putting your house at risk to have the chance of a gain in the stock market (and nothing in the market is sure, especially in the short term), and I would really advise against it. The decision you're considering making resolves down to this one. Note: It is always better to make any additional checks out as \"\"for principal only\"\", unless you will be missing a future payment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a77ce45759fedc4b9142759f19d2ed37",
"text": "\"Well hindsight tells us now that by and large, doing 100% borrowing was not the best policy we could have taken. It gets nitpicky, but in the US the traditional 20% is the answer I presently feel comfortable with. It could be a reactionary judgement I am making to the current mess (in which I have formed the opinion that all parties are responsible) and arm-chair quarterbacking \"\"if we had only stuck with the 20% rule, we wouldn't be here right now. The truth is probably much more gray than that, but like all things personal finance it is really up to you. If the law allows 100% financing ask yourself if it really makes sense that a bank would just loan you hundreds of thousands of dollars to live somewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8565cf0b7da77351974b7bf617d705d7",
"text": "the math makes sense to invest instead of paying down, but... how much would you borrow at 3.5%, to invest the money into the stock market? It's the same question, just turned around.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d89733e4b32e3be48a54e2f273de7a57",
"text": "\"The article said $65,000 (rounds numbers imply an estimate) was the original amount she borrowed. However she isn't on the hook for only $65,000. Her loans have interest and ***one*** of the loans had an 8% interest rate. Let's ASSUME (for the purposes of this exercise to illustrate what compound interest can do to \"\"good debt\"\") that all of her loans are at 8% interest over a 30 year repayment period. Her total payments over the course of the 30 years will amount to $172,000. Yes that's a big number. $107,000 going to INTEREST and $65,000 going towards the original loan balance. More realistically her loans are probably in the 6-8% interest range (since interest rates were higher 20 years ago) so the amount is a little smaller, but the bulk of her payments will be for paying interest not paying down her loan balance. She really couldn't afford to borrow for a master's degree to make so little in a high cost of living area.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6f35098b4eace30b2e36802e1eef540",
"text": "I don't agree with others regarding paying off debt ASAP. You only have auto loan and auto loans are actually good for your credit score. With a mere $6k balance, it is not like you are going to have a problem paying off the loan. Not only that you will build your credit score and this will come in handy when you are purchasing a home. With the Federal Reserve setting the interest rate at 0% until 2015, I can't understand why people would pay off anything ASAP. As long as you don't have revolving credit card balances, you are in the clear. I don't know your salary nor how big your porfolio is but I would save 5 months expense in cash and dump the rest in precious metals. Holding cash is the worst thing you could be doing (unless you predict a deflation). You said you already have 40% in precious metals. You are already way ahead of other 95% of Americans by protecting your purchasing power. Follow your gut. The stormg is coming and it's not going to get any better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee79f89d2eccdf0d137f986fd276ece",
"text": "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to save up and wait to make a payment on any of these loans. Any dollar you pay today works better than saving it and waiting months to pay it, no matter which loan it will be applied to. Since your lender won't let you choose which loan your payment is being applied to, don't worry about it. Just make as big a payment as you can each month, and try to get the whole thing out of your life as soon as possible. The result of this will be that the smaller balance loans will be paid off first, and the bigger balance loans later. It is unfortunate that the higher interest rate loans will be paid later, but it sounds like you don't have a choice, so it is not worth worrying about. Instead of thinking of it as 5 loans of different amounts, think of it as one loan with a balance of $74,000, and make payments as quickly and as often as possible. For example, let's say that you have $1000 a month extra to throw at the loans. You would be better off paying $1000 each month than waiting until you have $4000 in the bank and paying it all at once toward one loan. How the lender divides up your payment is less significant than when the lender gets the payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f18fc365689652e6ace8938a416fef9d",
"text": "\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a8d7995d7303fd33d5e096f3635f99c",
"text": "\"There is a substantial likelihood over the next several years that the US Dollar will experience inflation. (You may have heard terms like \"\"Quantitative Easing.\"\") With inflation, the value of each dollar you have will go down. This also means that the value of each dollar you owe will go down as well. So, taking out a loan / issuing a bond at a very good rate, converting it into an asset that's a better way to store value (possibly including stock in a big stable company like MSFT) and then watching inflation reduce the (real) value of the loan faster than the interest piles up... that's like getting free money. Combine that with the tax-shelter games alluded to by everyone else, and it starts to look like a very profitable endeavour.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10a507f344ac4ddd357f62b4226c4b24",
"text": "Just for another opinion, radio host Clark Howard would suggest killing the private student loans as quickly as possible. The only reason is the industry around private student loans has fewer rules as to how they interact with you, and they have historically been very unpleasant if you have to deal with them in bad financial times. As a safety net, get rid of the private student loans as your main focus while you have the money and rates are low. Not for financial reasons per se, but for peace of mind. The other advice in this question are great, but nobody mentioned the potential dark side of private student loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a32ff455ef9ede9b3f4850281372c9a",
"text": "The answer to your question depends on your answer to this question: Would you be willing to take out a loan at that interest rate and invest that money straight into stocks? That's basically what you're planning to do. You leverage your stock investment, which is a valid and often used way to improve returns. Better returns ALWAYS come with more risk. Depending on your location there might be a tax advantage to a mortage, which you can take into account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbb1cccd1b4441b98a23745c915152d9",
"text": "As a personal advice, its best avoided to take a loan for a vacation. Having said that it would also depend on the amount of loan that one is planning to take and the duration for repaying the loan and the rate of interest. One has to also consider if you borrow; when you are paying the loan back, is that money comming out of something else that was budgeted. Say paying this loan means that you can't save enough for the downpayment for your house you plan to buy next year or will mean less contributions to retirement savings. If so then its definately advisable to forego the vacation travel. You can still take the holiday and enjoy at home doing something else that of meaning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d928ef4d9e926330853c2e5a63a88b80",
"text": "\"Debt increases your exposure to risk. What happens if you lose your job, or a major expense comes up and you have to make a hard decision about skipping a loan payment? Being debt free means you aren't paying money to the bank in interest, and that's money that can go into your pocket. Debt can be a useful tool, however. It's all about what you do with the money you borrow. Will you be able to get something back that is worth more than the interest of the loan? A good example is your education. How much more money will you make with a college degree? Is it more than you will be paying in interest over the life of the loan? Then it was probably worth it. Instead of paying down your loans, can you invest that money into something with a better rate of rate of return than the interest rate of the loan? For example, why pay off your 3% student loan if you can invest in a stock with a 6% return? The money goes to better use if it is invested. (Note that most investments count as taxable income, so you have to factor taxes into your effective rate of return.) The caveat to this is that most investments have at least some risk associated with them. (Stocks don't always go up.) You have to weigh this when deciding to invest vs pay down debts. Paying down the debt is more of a \"\"sure thing\"\". Another thing to consider: If you have a long-term loan (several years), paying extra principal on a loan early on can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan, due to power of compound interest. Extra payments on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise move. Just make sure you are paying down the principal, not the interest! (And check for early repayment penalties.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e4ed84fdb1f925cabfef36d8b03482",
"text": "\"Whether or not the specific card in question is truly 0% interest rate for the first 12 months, such cards do exist. However, the bank does make money out of it on the average: Still, 12 months of not having to think about paying the bill. Nice. This is exactly what they want you to do. Then in 12 months, when you start thinking about it, you may find out that you don't have the cash immediately available and end up paying the (usually very large) interest. It is possible to game this system to keep the \"\"free\"\" money in investments for the 12 months, as long as you are very careful to always follow the terms and dates. Because even one mishap can take away the small profits you could get for a 12 month investment of a few thousand dollars, it is rarely worth the effort.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1ec8b0947c85cfe7b20d0b01e8ed6a85
|
What is meant by “unexpected expenses” in my 401k plan?
|
[
{
"docid": "3af05dd9d29355cadf518acbb6fcddde",
"text": "IANAL, but it sounds like indemnification language. They are saying they have the option to charge expenses to participants if they would like. It should say explicitly (you mention that it does) who the 'default payer' is. Unexpected expenses could be anything that's not in the normal course of business. I know that doesn't help much, but some examples may be plan document restatements or admin expenses from plan failures/corrections. We have language in some of our PFDs that say in the absence of revenue-sharing a participants' share of expenses may be higher. Yes, 'from participant accounts' means they have the authority to deduct from your 401k account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4992b5f2a877c27f50d8e5551f1fb18d",
"text": "Firstly assumption is that Now if expense is from your savings",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db1eff9ecb0599d28bcdcc0552678f83",
"text": "your 401k is charged a management fee, directly debited from your account. the mutual funds and etfs therein have operating expense ratios, which are taken out of their performance. your IRA and brokerage accounts likely have commissions assessed per transaction. that is really it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad2b983f9544f2d6e14dae0788a9a541",
"text": "Nope sorry guest you are wrong. how can salary and an expense be on the same side of the ledger? Salary 2000 Personal bank 2000 Phone expenses 30 Personal bank 30",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fa88dd5a13406065a89aa37e4b200a5",
"text": "\"Click on the ? icon next to \"\"Employer Plan\"\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "552c97f6a717f65fe5560ea03fd90c76",
"text": "\"I think we'd need to look at actual numbers to see where you're running into trouble. I'm also a little confused by your use of the term \"\"unexpected expenses\"\". You seem to be using that to describe expenses that are quite regular, that occur every X months, and so are totally expected. But assuming this is just some clumsy wording ... Here's the thing: Start out by taking the amount of each expense, divided by the number of months between occurrences. This is the monthly cost of each expense. Add all these up. This is the amount that you should be setting aside every month for these expenses, once you get a \"\"base amount\"\" set up. So to take a simple example: Say you have to pay property taxes of $1200 twice a year. So that's $1200 every 6 months = $200 per month. Also say you have to pay a water bill once every 3 months that's typically $90. So $90 divided by 3 = $30. Assuming that was it, in the long term you'd need to put aside $230 per month to stay even. I say \"\"in the long term\"\" because when you're just starting, you need to put aside an amount sufficient that your balance won't fall below zero. The easiest way to do this is to just set up a chart where you start from zero and add (in this example) $230 each month, and then subtract the amount of the bills when they will hit. Do this for some reasonable time in the future, say one year. Find the biggest negative balance. If you can add this amount to get started, you'll be safe. If not, add this amount divided by the number of months from now until it occurs and make that a temporary addition to your deposits. Check if you now are safely always positive. If not, repeat the process for the next biggest negative. For example, let's say the property tax bills are April and October and the water bills are February, May, August, and November. Then your chart would look like this: The biggest negative is -370 in April. So you have to add $370 in the first 4 months, or $92.50 per month. Let's say $93. That would give: Now you stay at least barely above water for the whole year. You could extend the chart our further, but odds are the exact numbers will change next year and you'll have to recalculate anyway. The more irregular the expenses, the more you will build up just before the big expense hits. But that's the whole point of saving for these, right? If a $1200 bill is coming next week and you don't have close to $1200 saved up in the account, where is the money coming from? If you have enough spare cash that you can just take the $1200 out of what you would have spent on lunch tomorrow, then you don't need this sort of account.\"",
"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": "5e20fcec6c8c6bffd7c63b45263466c2",
"text": "\"I think there are several issues here. First, there's the contribution. As littleadv said, there is no excess contribution. Excess contribution is only if you exceed the contribution limit. The contribution limit for Traditional IRAs does not depend on how high your income goes or whether you have a 401(k). It's the deduction limit that may depend on those things. Not deducting it is perfectly legitimate, and is completely different than an \"\"excess contribution\"\", which has a penalty. Second, the withdrawal. You are allowed to withdraw contributions made during a year, plus any earnings from those contributions, before the tax filing deadline for the taxes of that year (which is April 15 of the following year, or even up to October 15 of the following year), and it will be treated as if the contribution never happened. No penalties. The earnings will be taxed as regular income (as if you put it in a bank account). That sounds like what you did. So the withdrawal was not an \"\"early withdrawal\"\", and the 1099-R should reflect that (what distribution code did they put?). Third, even if (and it does not sound like the case, but if) it doesn't qualify as a return of contributions before the tax due date as described above (maybe you withdrew it after October 15 of the following year), as littleadv mentioned, your contribution was a non-deductible contribution, and when withdrawing it, only the earnings portion (which after such a short time should only be a very small part of the distribution) would be subject to tax and penalty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a11ccdbf30c6fbfee86941d06167d15",
"text": "The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however. What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index. Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money. Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84fb32f8ad53e211bbdd5f4eb31af3c8",
"text": "No, you cannot. You can only deduct expenses that the employer required from you, are used solely for the employer's (not your!) benefit, you were not reimbursed for them and they're above the 2% AGI threshold. And that - only if you're itemizing your deductions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ed05ba03b5f9286a96d556596e82a02",
"text": "\"What you're describing is a non-deductible traditional IRA. That is what happens when your employer 401K or your high income disqualifies gou from using a traditional IRA the normal way. Yes, non-deductible traditional IRAs are stupid.** Now let's be clear on the mechanism behind the difference. There's an axiom of tax law that the same money can't be taxed twice. This is baked so deep into tax law that it often isn't even specified particularly. The IRS is not allowed to impose tax on money already taxed, i.e. The original contribution on an ND Trad IRA. So this is not a new kind of IRA, it is simply a Trad IRA with an asterisk. **But then, some say so are deductible traditional IRAs when compared to the Roth. The real power of an ND Trad IRA is that it can be converted to Roth at all income levels. This is called the \"\"Roth Backdoor\"\". It combines three factors. Contribute to an ND Trad IRA, stick it in a money market/sweep fund, and a week later convert to Roth, pay taxes on the 17 cents of growth in the sweep fund since the rest was already taxed. The net effect is to work the same as a Roth contribution - not tax deductible, becomes a Roth, and is not taxed on distribution. If you already have traditional IRA money that you contributed that wasn't taxed, this really screws things up. Because you can't segment or LIFO your IRA money, the IRS considers it one huge bucket, and requires you draw in proportion. EEK! Suppose you contribute $5000 to an IRA in a non-deductible mode. But you also have a different IRA funded with pretax money that now has $45,000. As far as IRS is concerned, you have one $50,000 IRA and only $5000 (10%) is post-tax. You convert $5000 to Roth and IRS says 90% of that money is taxable, since it's the same pool of money. You owe taxes on all of it less the $500 fraction that was pre-taxed, and $4500 of already-taxed IRA remains in the account. The math gets totally out-of-hand after just a couple of conversions. Your best bet is to convert the whole shebang at one time -- and to avoid a monstrous tax hit, do this in a gap year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc84f95ad0536b59e4ace1dc8393f5d0",
"text": "mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account. In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions. In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets. As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well. (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a268df25ca84a71891e1500c3c182a8",
"text": "When you adjust your investments the following will happen: Initial condition: Modified condition: This means that after this change you will note that the amount of federal tax you pay each month via withholding will go up. You are now contributing less pre-tax, so your taxable income has increased. If you make no other changes, then in April you will either have increased your refund by 6 months x the additional $25 a month, or decreased the amount you owe by the same amount. There is no change in the total 401K balance at the end of the year, other than accounting for how much is held pre-tax vs. Roth post-tax. Keep in mind that employer contributions must be pre-tax. The company could never guess what your tax situation is. They withhold money for taxes based on the form you fill out, but they have no idea of your family's tax situation. If you fail to have enough withheld, you pay the penalty — not the company. *The tax savings are complex because it depends on marital status, your other pre-tax amounts for medical, and how much income your spouse makes, plus your other income and deductions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b9a659ee68b3baea3494b9c715fafe6",
"text": "\"For me, the emergency fund is meant to cover unexpected, but necessary expenses that I didn't budget for. The emergency fund allows me to pay for these things without going into debt. Let's say that my car breaks down, and I don't have any money in my budget for fixing it. I really need to get my car fixed, so I spend the money from my emergency fund. However, cars break down periodically. If I was doing a better job with my budget, I would allocate some money each month into a \"\"car repair/maintenance\"\" category. (In fact, I actually do this.) With my budgeting software, I can look at how much I've spent on car repairs over the last year, and budget a monthly amount for car repair expenses. Even if I do this, I might end up short if I am unlucky. Emergency fund to the rescue! If I'm budgeting correctly, I don't pay any regular bills out of this fund, as those are expected expenses. Car insurance, life insurance, and property tax are all bills that come on a regular basis, and I set aside money for each of these each month so that when the bill comes, I have the money ready to go. The recommended size of an emergency fund is usually listed as \"\"3 to 6 months of expenses.\"\" However, that is just a rough guideline. As you get better with your budget, you might find that you have a lower probability of needing it, and you can let your emergency fund fall to the lower end of the guideline range. The size of my own emergency fund is on the lower end of this scale. And if I have a true crisis (i.e. extended unemployment, severe family medical event), I can \"\"rob\"\" one of my other savings funds, such as my car replacement fund, vacation fund, etc. Don't be afraid to spend your emergency fund money if you need it. If you have an unexpected, necessary expense that you have not budgeted for, use the emergency fund money. However, your goal should be to get to the point where you never have to use it, because you have adequately accounted for all of the expenses that you can reasonably expect to have in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5770cab08762f7c46b6612207ed299b9",
"text": "Math - The half-match is 3% or $3900. After 5 years, $19,500. If you stay, you are vested, and have $20K (I hope it's actually far more) extra. For you, it's like 2 month's salary bonus after 5 years. If you leave early, the good news is that even if the expenses within the plan weren't great, you have the money you put in, along with what vested so far. You move that to an IRA and choose your own thrifty funds or ETFs. For me (as Duff said, there's no one answer, so to be clear, this is my feeling, or preference, not gospel) 6% is far too little to save as a percent of my income. So if the 401(k) fees ran say .8% or higher, I'd put in the 6% to get the potential match, and then save on the side. Our answers might change slightly depending on the exact fees you're exposed to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad506b5910152fb05fc69f2320f26b2a",
"text": "\"In your comment, you said: It just seems a little stupid to me to go and put away money for the explicit purpose of emergencies (presumably in a way that's somehow different from how you would normally save money). Seems better to go and treat the money as you would normally, and then pull whatever you need from the money that you had saved. The problem with that logic is that people save money for many different things. You might save for a vacation, or a new refrigerator, or a new car, or a house, or your kids' college education. If you \"\"pull whatever you need\"\" for such expenses, you may find that when a real emergency occurs, you don't have enough money. The things you used it for may have been legitimate, reasonable expenses, but nonetheless you may later wish you had deferred those expenses until after you had built up a cushion. So the idea of an emergency fund is to designate certain money that is not to be used for \"\"whatever you need\"\", but specifically for unforeseen circumstances. Of course there can be debate about what counts as an emergency, but the main point is to distinguish saving for planned future expenses from saving for unplanned future expenses. Note that this doesn't mean the money has to be in a separate account, or saved in any special \"\"way\"\". It just means the money has to be considered by you as an emergency fund. For some people, it may be psychologically useful to put the emergency fund in a separate account that they never withdraw from. But even if you just have all your money in one savings account and you mentally tell yourself, \"\"I don't want to ever let the balance drop below $10,000, just so I have a safety cushion\"\" then you are effectively designating that $10,000 as an emergency fund.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2b9b49848acd73e0956999c6b0fe62e3
|
Live in Oregon and work in Washington: Do I need to file Oregon state taxes?
|
[
{
"docid": "6f99de8c7958c0d3021748790f921142",
"text": "Yes. Here's the answer to this question from oregon.gov: 3. I am moving into Oregon. What income will be taxed by Oregon? As an Oregon resident, you are taxed on ALL income regardless of the source of the income. This includes, but is not limited to: You may need to pay estimated taxes if you don't have Oregon withholding on your income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4aa07f26f949b47c07d71acff501526",
"text": "Unfortunately, you are required, but most states do have agreements with neighboring states that let the states share the collected taxes without the person having to pay double taxes. So being as this is your first tax return in your current situation, you might be wise to have a professional fill it out for you this year and then next year you can use it as a template. Additionally, I really would like to see someone challenge this across state lines taxation in court. It sure seems to me that it is a inter-state tariff/duty, which the state's are expressly forbidden from doing in the constitution.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eb3edb9346792440f6dfe9396e27c24c",
"text": "If you have non Residency status in Canada you don't need to file Canadian tax return. To confirm your status you need to contact Canada Revenue (send them letter, probably to complete some form).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "911df199ca187b4ee1e9ef008adcf0a7",
"text": "Yes, you do. You also need to file a tax return every year, and if you have more than $50k of total savings you need to declare this every year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28526f65abdc2985664cffeb477ba4eb",
"text": "\"IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc): \"\"Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. \"\" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b80f37a9693776121b787c7f4caa04d8",
"text": "No, you probably do not need to file a tax return if you received no income, and if you meet a number of other criteria. The below is copied and pasted, slightly edited, from the CRA: You must file a return for 2014 if any of the following situations apply: You have to pay tax for 2014. We sent you a request to file a return. You and your spouse or common-law partner elected to split pension income for 2014. See lines 115, 116, 129, and 210. You received working income tax benefit (WITB) advance payments in 2014. You disposed of capital property in 2014 (for example, if you sold real estate or shares) or you realized a taxable capital gain (for example, if a mutual fund or trust attributed amounts to you, or you are reporting a capital gains reserve you claimed on your 2013 return). You have to repay any of your old age security or employment insurance benefits. See line 235. You have not repaid all amounts withdrawn from your registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) under the Home Buyers’ Plan or the Lifelong Learning Plan. For more information, go to Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) or see Guide RC4112, Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) or You have to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). This can apply if, for 2014, the total of your net self-employment income and pensionable employment income is more than $3,500. See line 222. You are paying employment insurance premiums on self-employment and other eligible earnings. See lines 317 and 430. In general, you will want to file a tax return even if none of the above applies. You could, for example, claim a GST/HST credit even with no income. Now, if you receive any income at all, you are going to have to pay taxes, which means you are obligated to file a tax return. If sufficient taxes were deducted from your paycheque, you are still obligated to file a tax return. However, you will not have to pay penalties if you file late, even if you file very late, at least not until the CRA sends you a request to file. But be aware, you won't likely be able to tell if you owe the CRA money until you do your taxes, and if you do end up owing, there are substantial penalties for filing late. In general, I'd strongly advise filing your tax return in almost all circumstances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d7a63f5121c2c343600372138c27dbe",
"text": "Having 401k or HSA is not income and doesn't trigger filing requirements. Withdrawing from 401k or HSA does. Also, in some States, HSA gains are taxed as investment income, so if you have gains in an HSA and you're a resident of such a State - you'll need to file a State tax return and pay taxes on the gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4670b0910632a066c4f05dc13cb178eb",
"text": "Answering for just the US part, yes, you should be able to do this and it's a good strategy. The only additional gotcha I can think of is that if you've made after-tax contributions to your traditional IRA, you need to prorate the conversion, you can't just convert all the pre-tax or all the after-tax. I'm not familiar with Oregon personal income tax so there may be additional gotchas there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1318010b545beed42ab41bb2b647d1b5",
"text": "A couple things. First of all, most people's MAIN source of income is from their job, but they have others, such as bank interest, stock dividends, etc. So that income has to be reported with their wage income. The second thing is that most people have deductions NOT connected with their job. These deductions reduce income (and generate refunds). So it's in their interest to file.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caac26bdd391f8e851b7ad6108cc0407",
"text": "Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "734867313a623f2f57edf5c18acbae18",
"text": "Yes, you need to include income from your freelance work on your tax return. In the eyes of the IRS, this is self-employment income from your sole-proprietorship business. The reason you don't see it mentioned in the 1040EZ instructions is that you can't use the 1040EZ form if you have self-employment income. You'll need to use the full 1040 form. Your business income and expenses will be reported on a Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ, and the result will end up on Line 12 of the 1040. Take a look at the requirements at the top of the C-EZ form; you probably meet them and can use it instead of the more complicated C form. If you have any deductible business expenses related to your freelance business, this would be done on Schedule C or C-EZ. If your freelance income was more than $400, you'll also need to pay self-employment tax. To do this, you file Schedule SE, and the tax from that schedule lands on form 1040 Line 57.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58fd1222e8565395bee7290f7a71a3e3",
"text": "\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97cbde3c965690a53a5b344eaf7ebe19",
"text": "Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e54f8026b89f25711e7092dcbbaf3e1",
"text": "From the Massachusetts Department of Revenue: 1st - Massachusetts Source Income That is Excluded Massachusetts gross income excludes certain items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts: non-business related interest, dividends and gains from the sale or exchange of intangibles, and qualified pension income. 2nd - Massachusetts Source Income That is Included: Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: 3rd - Trade or business, Including Employment Carried on in Massachusetts: A nonresident has a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if: A nonresident generally is not engaged in a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if the nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts is casual, isolated and inconsequential. A nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts will ordinarily be considered casual, isolated and inconsequential if it meets the requirements of the Ancillary Activity Test (AAT) and Examples. When nonresidents earn or derive income from sources both within Massachusetts and elsewhere, and no exact determination can be made of the amount of Massachusetts source income, an apportionment of income must be made to determine that amount considered Massachusetts gross income. 4th - Apportionment of Income: Apportionment Methods: The three most common apportionment methods used to determine Massachusetts source income are as follows: Gross income is multiplied by a: So if you go to Massachusetts to work, you have to pay the tax. If you collect a share of the profit or revenue from Massachusetts, you have to pay tax on that. If you work from Oregon and are paid for that work, then you don't pay Massachusetts tax on that. If anything, your company might have to pay Oregon taxes on revenue you generate (you are their agent or employee in Oregon). Does the answer change depending on whether the income is reported at 1099 or W-2? This shouldn't matter legally. It's possible that it would be easier to see that the work was done in Oregon in one or the other. I.e. it doesn't make any legal difference but may make a practical difference. All this assumes that you are purely an employee or contractor and not an owner. If you are an owner, you have to pay taxes on any income from your Massachusetts business. Note that this applies to things like copyrights and real estate as well as the business. This also assumes that you are doing your work in Oregon. If you live in Oregon and travel to Massachusetts to work, you pay taxes on your Massachusetts income in Massachusetts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d402dc885d5d6ef6afda8b49de969880",
"text": "You're doing business in the US and derive income from the US, so I'd say that yes, you should file a non-resident tax return in the US. And in Connecticut, as well, since that's where you're conducting business (via your domestic LLC registered there). Since you paid more than $600 to your contractor, you're probably also supposed to send a 1099 to him on that account on behalf of your LLC (which is you, essentially, if you're the only member).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8429265033f2b74acb269e7e2c43e9f",
"text": "In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee. In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website. So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is. If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b00dcf0b2faaae67c0b38a657cffcb20",
"text": "\"I'm not a tax professional, but as I understand it, you are not expected to commute from San Francisco to Boston. :) If your employer has not provided you with an external office, then yes, you have very likely met the \"\"convenience of the employer\"\" test. However, to take the home office deduction, there are many requirements that have to be met. You can read more at the Nolo article Can You Deduct Your Home Office When You're an Employee? (Thanks, keshlam) The home office deduction has many nuances and is enough of an IRS red flag that you would be well-advised to talk to an accountant about it. You need to be able to show that it is exclusively and necessarily used for your job. Another thing to remember: as an employee, the home office deduction, if you take it, will be deducted on Schedule A, line 21 (unreimbursed employee expenses), among other Miscellaneous Deductions. Deductions in this section need to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income before you can start to deduct. So it will not be worth it to pursue the deduction if your income is too high, or your housing expenses are too low, or your office is too small compared to the rest of your house, or you don't itemize deductions.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f3715b52e767434faeab6dde2335d228
|
How smart is it to really be 100% debt free?
|
[
{
"docid": "83cfaea5fdada9fde86278b2b24a2eab",
"text": "If you can borrow for an asset that gives you income that's more than the cost of carrying the debt, then go for it. But the kinds of debts you have now aren't those kinds of debt, so get rid of them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d928ef4d9e926330853c2e5a63a88b80",
"text": "\"Debt increases your exposure to risk. What happens if you lose your job, or a major expense comes up and you have to make a hard decision about skipping a loan payment? Being debt free means you aren't paying money to the bank in interest, and that's money that can go into your pocket. Debt can be a useful tool, however. It's all about what you do with the money you borrow. Will you be able to get something back that is worth more than the interest of the loan? A good example is your education. How much more money will you make with a college degree? Is it more than you will be paying in interest over the life of the loan? Then it was probably worth it. Instead of paying down your loans, can you invest that money into something with a better rate of rate of return than the interest rate of the loan? For example, why pay off your 3% student loan if you can invest in a stock with a 6% return? The money goes to better use if it is invested. (Note that most investments count as taxable income, so you have to factor taxes into your effective rate of return.) The caveat to this is that most investments have at least some risk associated with them. (Stocks don't always go up.) You have to weigh this when deciding to invest vs pay down debts. Paying down the debt is more of a \"\"sure thing\"\". Another thing to consider: If you have a long-term loan (several years), paying extra principal on a loan early on can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan, due to power of compound interest. Extra payments on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise move. Just make sure you are paying down the principal, not the interest! (And check for early repayment penalties.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92a764065e2df9ef7f06405c84739887",
"text": "\"The responses here are excellent. I'd add just a couple points. Debt is not generic. It ranges from low (my HELOC is 2.5%) to insane (24% credit card, anyone?). When I read about the obsession to be completely debt free, I ask questions. Are you saving in your 401(k) at least up to the match? I disagree with the \"\"debt is evil\"\" people who advise to ignore retirement savings while paying off every last debt. My company offers a dollar for dollar match on the first 5% of income deposited. So a $60K earner will see a $3000 deposit doubled. 5 years of this, and he has 1/2 a year's income in his retirement account, more with positive returns. (note - for those so fearful of losses, all 401(k) accounts have to offer a fixed income, low risk choice. currently 1% or less, but the opposite of \"\"I can lose it all\"\".) After that, paying off the higher debt is great. When it's time to hack away at student debt and mortgage, I am concerned that if it's at the risk of having no savings, I'd hold off. Consider - Two people in homes worth $250K. One has a mortgage of $250K and $100K in the bank. The other has his mortgage paid down to $150K. When they lose their jobs, the guy with the $100K in the bank has the funds to float himself through a period of unemployment as well as a house the bank is less likely to foreclose on. The guy with no money is in deep trouble, and the bank can sell his house for $150K and run away (after proper foreclosure proceedings of course.) My mortgage is one bill, like any other, and only a bit more than my property tax. I don't lose sleep over it. It will be paid before I retire, and before my 11yr old is off to college. I don't think you stupid for paying your low interest debt at your own pace.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b678d9bf10967e623523f9e00eec5380",
"text": "You might miss an opportunity or three by strictly avoiding debt, but I can't think of a problem you will create by being debt free. So maybe it isn't the absolutely smartest thing to avoid debt on principle*, but it certainly is pretty smart at the very least.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3302e7d2dee6b7ea5b454ce9dc2ea555",
"text": "Keep in mind that you NEED to have a cash reserve. Blindly applying all stray cash to debt reduction is a bad idea. Your lenders do not care about your balance. All they care about is your NEXT payment. It is therefore imperative that you have a cash reserve that can carry these payments for several months. Having zero cash reserves puts you at high risk for such simple things as the payroll clerk at work missing the monthly deposit (Rare, but it happens.) I've also been in situations where a major client had a cash flow issue and delayed payment, and our company had to borrow to meet payroll that month. Fortunately, we were in good standing with the bank and had low debt, but it could have been catastrophic for any employees living paycheque to paycheque.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa1fa0e337a398984ee768b2991a4bd5",
"text": "No matter what, it is never a bad decision to go 100% debt free. However, you can make debt work in your favor in some cases (investments, education, etc.), but you need to approach it with a plan and long term strategy. Interest, fees, and loss of value can quickly eat up any gains.",
"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": "d9829f67dd8b32ae0f8d1936e2b28bc9",
"text": "When you're debt free everything you own feels different. The lack of financial stress in your life goes away. BUT! before you do go gung-ho on paying down debt think through these steps (and no I did not come up with them. Dave Ramsey did and others). Truncated from - http://www.daveramsey.com/new/baby-steps/ I have 1 credit card. Only use it for business/travel but pay it off every month (yay for auto-draft). Everthing else is cash/debit and we live by a budget. If it's not in the budget we don't buy it. Easy as pie. The hard part is disciplining yourself to wait. Our society is gear for BUY NOW! PAY LATER! and well you can see where that has taken our country and families. And celebrate the small victories. Pay off 1 debt then go have a nice dinner. Things like that help keep you motivated and pursuing the end goal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "914a20d33cb61e05c1165a20b706d9ae",
"text": "\"The day I paid my last student loan payment and my last car payment was (January 4, 2000) a very happy day for me, being then 100% debt free. It is a very good feeling, especially since I was saving cash as well. It's a great thing to know that no-one \"\"owns\"\" you. Many others here have provided useful information about debt, and I know that paying off your existing loans will improve your credit rating, in case you want to go back into debt (which I did later in 2000, by buying a house). For most people, borrowing money to invest it is complicated (make sure you're not paying more on your borrowed $ than you make on your investment) due to the fact that most investments have risk involved. I would say that being debt-free is a very good goal, and there's a level of freedom it gives you. Just make sure you have your \"\"rainy day\"\" fund building while you're on your way to getting there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f67e8b5447b029d46b9d56735be9c51",
"text": "\"Would you run a marathon with ankle weights on? It starts off as ankle weights, but then grows into a ball and chain as you dig yourself a little deeper each time you use your credit card (and then don't payoff the balance because \"\"something more important came up\"\"). I would love for my wife to be able to be home and raise our son, but we simply can't afford to do that with the amount of debt we have. We are clawing our way out, and will pay off one student loan and a car loan, then start saving for a house and once we have that, we'll get back to debt reduction. Get debt free. That's where we are headed. Most of it is student loans at this point, but debt will take away your freedom to do whatever you like down the line. It just increases your overhead in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db1d25136b1a5627b3cca03271cc50d5",
"text": "\"100% debt free is an objective. Being there is good, but as long as you have a plan to get there, are sticking to it and it's moving you towards it at a reasonable rate (e.g. \"\"I will be debt free by the end of 2011.\"\"), you should be in good shape. It's when you don't ever expect to be debt free that you have a problem. Going into debt is one question and a very situation dependent one. Getting back out is another and a very easy one: pay off all debts as a fast as you reasonably can, starting with the highest interest ones. OTOH this doesn't imply that you should forgo every optional expense (including things like savings and entertainment) to pay off debts, that would be unreasonable, but just that paying down debts should always be considered when thinking about what to do with money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "018a0681a063de4325c24a085eb6e29a",
"text": "\"This is a \"\"stress\"\" period, much like the 1930s and 1970s. At a time like this, it is smart to be debt free, and to have money saved for the likely emergencies. There are growth periods like those of the 1980s and 1990s, probably returning in the 2020s and 2030s. At such times, it makes sense to play it a little \"\"looser\"\" and borrow money for investments. But the first order of business in answering this question is to look around you and figure out what is going on in the world (stress or growth).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "447e36756a611039b1bd682cce45a182",
"text": "As others mentioned, the only clear reason to remain in debt is if you can find an investment that yields more than what you're paying to maintain the debt. This can happen if a debt was established during low-rate period and you're in a high-rate period (not what is happening now.) A speculative reason to keep debt is as an inflation bet. If you believe money will shortly lose value, you are better off postponing repayment until the drop occurs. However you're not likely to be able to make these bets successfully. Hope this helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bbdaf38d825fac7f305bed6486205c2",
"text": "Having no debt should be the ultimate goal for every household, IMHO, but at what cost? As an example, I had some clients (before they started working with me) that had outstanding debt when they retired and were gung-ho to pay it off. They opted to take it out of their retirement accounts. They didn't set aside enough for taxes which was their first mistake. After a few years, they now have realized they should not have paid off everything as now they have other medical issues that have arisen and not enough in their retirement accounts to satisfy their monthly requirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ef0345c3be658f9d7ef4203ac5e33e2",
"text": "A Simple Rule to discern between good and bad debt: Does this mean you should never buy a house or car? Of course not. But if you accrue bad debt, make sure that you can handle it and understand the costs and repercussions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "527dc07cc1b99bcf5b9582e706aad4b0",
"text": "My take is that there are many factors to consider when deciding whether to accelerate payment of a debt beyond the require minimum. Ideally you would want to be debt-free with a home owned outright, a pension big enough to lead a nice life for the rest of your days and plenty of savings to cover any unexpected expenses. Being debt-free is not a bad thing but it should not come at the expense of your overall financial health.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31b635917f55546f1a1adadfd49cbb96",
"text": "Very smart. Let other people pay you interest. Don't pay other people interest. And, yes, I know it's possible to borrow money from one place and lend it to another place at a slightly higher rate, but why bother.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9bfa7300ae614868340e72491b9e9aa",
"text": "Considering that we are in a low-interest rate period (the lowest in history), it's smart to loan money from the bank to reinvest in property or other investments as far as you get a better yield (ROI) than the interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c245a5000b1b536b0c03c48ffce9242",
"text": "Around 3 months back, I paid back my last loan from my father which he gave for the car. Now I am totally debt free from 2 months. I have paid back following loans, 1. Education loan. 2. Car loan. I don't have my own property yet. I have a 3 months emergency fund saved which helps me overcome if there is a sudden expense. Overall, its a great idea to be debt free. I used to get extreme thoughts while I had a loan. I paid back and now I am doing good.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b4a71f1757cedfab7de46ccf168bda1",
"text": "Alas, institutions do not always act rationally, and being an outlier by never having debt may be bad enough. Therein is your problem. The question, then, is do you want to do business with institutions that are not acting rationally? While I cannot specifically speak to Canadian business practices, I have to imagine that in terms of credit history as a prerequisite to a lease, it can't be too different than America. It is possible to live without a credit score. This is typically done by those with enough resources that do not need to borrow money. To make transactions that commonly use credit scores, such as a lease, they will provide personal financial statements (balance sheets, personal income statements, bank statements, pay stubs, tax returns, etc...) to show that they are credit-worthy. References from prior landlords may also be beneficial. Again, the caveat is to elect to only conduct business with those individuals and institutions that are intelligent and rational enough to be able to analyze your financial position (and ability to pay) without a credit score. Therefore, you'll probably have better luck working with individual landlords, as opposed to corporate-owned rental complexes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ff686a1b505bc0321186daa6657e650",
"text": "\"From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward. Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008. So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse. You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is). If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead. The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as \"\"irrational\"\". Paying off debt feels good. Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well). If that makes them mindless \"\"minions\"\" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)\"",
"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": "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": "2bcdda60f3b4d3e30dc4ab0a0479d764",
"text": "\"Dave Ramsey would tell you to pay the smallest debt off first, regardless of interest rate, to build momentum for your debt snowball. Doing so also gives you some \"\"wins\"\" sooner than later in the goal of becoming debt free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce8676528e1a2a117a0179043c2db82d",
"text": "\"Money is a token that you can trade to other people for favors. Debt is a tool that allows you to ask for favors earlier than you might otherwise. What you have currently is: If the very worst were to happen, such as: You would owe $23,000 favors, and your \"\"salary\"\" wouldn't make a difference. What is a responsible amount to put toward a car? This is a tricky question to answer. Statistically speaking the very worst isn't worth your consideration. Only the \"\"very bad\"\", or \"\"kinda annoying\"\" circumstances are worth worrying about. The things that have a >5% chance of actually happening to you. Some of the \"\"very bad\"\" things that could happen (10k+ favors): Some of the \"\"kinda annoying\"\" things that could happen (~5k favors): So now that these issues are identified, we can settle on a time frame. This is very important. Your $30,000 in favors owed are not due in the next year. If your student loans have a typical 10-year payoff, then your risk management strategy only requires that you keep $3,000 in favors (approx) because that's how many are due in the next year. Except you have more than student loans for favors owed to others. You have rent. You eat food. You need to socialize. You need to meet your various needs. Each of these things will cost a certain number of favors in the next year. Add all of them up. Pretending that this data was correct (it obviously isn't) you'd owe $27,500 in favors if you made no money. Up until this point, I've been treating the data as though there's no income. So how does your income work with all of this? Simple, until you've saved 6-12 months of your expenses (not salary) in an FDIC or NCUSIF insured savings account, you have no free income. If you don't have savings to save yourself when bad things happen, you will start having more stress (what if something breaks? how will I survive till my next paycheck? etc.). Stress reduces your life expectancy. If you have no free income, and you need to buy a car, you need to buy the cheapest car that will meet your most basic needs. Consider carpooling. Consider walking or biking or public transit. You listed your salary at \"\"$95k\"\", but that isn't really $95k. It's more like $63k after taxes have been taken out. If you only needed to save ~$35k in favors, and the previous data was accurate (it isn't, do your own math): Per month you owe $2,875 in favors (34,500 / 12) Per month you gain $5,250 in favors (63,000 / 12) You have $7,000 in initial capital--I mean--favors You net $2,375 each month (5,250 - 2,875) To get $34,500 in favors will take you 12 months ( ⌈(34,500 - 7,000) / 2,375⌉ ) After 12 months you will have $2,375 in free income each month. You no longer need to save all of it (Although you may still need to save some of it. Be sure recalculate your expenses regularly to reevaluate if you need additional savings). What you do with your free income is up to you. You've got a safety net in saved earnings to get you through rough times, so if you want to buy a $100,000 sports car, all you have to do is account for it in your savings and expenses in all further calculations as you pay it off. To come up with a reasonable number, decide on how much you want to spend per month on a car. $500 is a nice round number that's less than $2,375. How many years do you want to save for the car? OR How many years do you want to pay off a car loan? 4 is a nice even number. $500 * 12 * 4 = $24,000 Now reduce that number 10% for taxes and fees $24,000 * 0.9 = $21,600 If you're getting a loan, deduct the cost of interest (using 5% as a ballpark here) $21,600 * 0.95 = $20,520 So according to my napkin math you can afford a car that costs ~$20k if you're willing to save/owe $500/month, but only after you've saved enough to be financially secure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5bbd155106252bac19ade8abd48cacc",
"text": "\"Is it not that bad? Depends how bad is bad. The problems causes by a government having large debt are similar to those caused by an individual having large debt. The big issue is: More and more of your income goes to paying interest on the debt, and is thus not available for spending on goods and services. If it gets bad enough, you find you cannot make payments, you start defaulting on loans, and then you have to make serious sacrifices, like selling your property to pay the debt. Nations have an advantage over individuals in that they can sometimes repudiate debt, i.e. simply declare that they are not going to pay. Lenders can then refuse to give them more money, but that doesn't get their original loans paid back. In theory other nations could send in troops to seize property to pay the loan, but this is a very extreme solution. Totally aside from any moral considerations, modern warfare is very expensive, it's likely the war would cost you more than you'd recover on the debt. How much debt is too much? It's hard to give a number, any more than one could give a \"\"maximum acceptable debt\"\" for an individual. American banks have a rule of thumb that they won't normally loan you money if your total debt payments would be more than 1/3 of your income. I've never come close to that, that seems awfully high to me. But, say, a young person just starting out so he's not making a lot of money, and he lives someplace with high housing prices, might find this painful but acceptable. Etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50cf006c613b501efd048b5b2c44065e",
"text": "\"Victor addressed the card issue with an excellent answer, I'd like to take a stab at the budget and income side. Your question clearly stated \"\"I am left with no extra money\"\" each month. Whenever I read such an assertion, I ask the person, \"\"but surely, X% of people in your country get by on a salary that's 95% of yours.\"\" In other words, there's the juggling of the debt itself, which as Victor's math shows, is one piece of the puzzle. The next piece is to sift through your budget and find $100/mo you spend that could be better spent reducing your debt. Turn down the temperature in the winter, up in the summer, etc. Take lunch to work. No Lattes. Really look at the budget and do something. On the income side. There are countless ways to earn a bit of extra money. I knew a blogger who started a site called \"\"Deliver away Debt.\"\" He told a story of delivering pizza every Friday and Saturday night. The guy had a great day job, in high tech, but it didn't lend itself to overtime, and he had the time available those two evenings to make money to kill off the debt he and his wife had. Our minimum wage is currently just over $7, but I happened to see a sign in a pizza shop window offering this exact position. $10/hr plus gas money. They wanted about 8 hours a weekend and said in general, tips pushed the rate to well over $15/hr. (They assumed I was asking for the job, and I said I was asking for a friend). This is just one idea. Next, and last. I knew a gal with a three bedroom small house. Tight budget. I suggested she find a roommate. She got so many responses, she took in two people, and the rents paid her mortgage bill in full. Out of debt in just over a year, instead of 4+. And in her case, no extra hours at all. There are sites with literally 100's of ideas. It takes one to match your time, interest, and skill. When you are at $0 extra, even finding $250/mo will change your life.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6856197742bcbab76c7f3726f14eda60",
"text": "\"Old question I know, but I have some thoughts to share. Your title and question say two different things. \"\"Better off\"\" should mean maximizing your ex-ante utility. Most of your question seems to describe maximizing your expected return, as do the simulation exercises here. Those are two different things because risk is implicitly ignored by what you call \"\"the pure mathematical answer.\"\" The expected return on your investments needs to exceed the cost of your debt because interest you pay is risk-free while your investments are risky. To solve this problem, consider the portfolio problem where paying down debt is the risk-free asset and consider the set of optimal solutions. You will get a capital allocation line between the solution where you put everything into paying down debt and the optimal/tangent portfolio from the set of risky assets. In order to determine where on that line someone is, you must know their utility function and risk parameters. You also must know the parameters of the investable universe, which we don't.\"",
"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": "43bcbeaea5441f622674e2cede1d0b6b",
"text": "With your windfall, you've been given a second chance. You've become debt free again, and get to start over. Here is what I would recommend from this point on: Decide that you want to remain debt free. It sounds like you've already done this, since you are asking this question. Commit to never borrowing money again. It sounds overly simplistic, but if you stop using your credit cards to spend money you don't have and you don't take out any loans, you won't be in debt. Learn to budget. Here is what is going to make being debt free possible. At the beginning of each month, you are going to write down your income for the month. Then write down your expenses for the month. Make sure you include everything. You'll have fixed monthly expenses, like rent, and variable monthly expenses, like electricity and phone. You'll also have ongoing expenses, like food, transportation, and entertainment. You'll have some expenses, like tuition, which doesn't come up every month, but is predictable and needs to be paid. (For these, you'll can set aside part of the money for the expense each month, and when the bill comes, you'll have the funds to pay it ready to go.) Using budgeting software, such as YNAB (which I recommend) will make this whole process much easier. You are allowed to change your plan if you need to at any time, but do not allow yourself to spend any money that is not in the plan. Take action to address any issues that become apparent from your budget. As you do your budget, you will probably struggle, at first. You will find that you don't have enough income to cover your expenses. Fortunately, you are now armed with data to be able to tackle this problem. There are two causes: either your expenses are too high, or your income is too low. Cut your expenses, if necessary. Before you had a written budget, it was hard to know where your money went each month. Now that you have a budget, it might be apparent that you are spending too much on food, or that you are spending too much on entertainment, or even that a roommate is stealing money. Do what you need to do to cut back the expenses that need cutting. Increase your income, if necessary. You might find from your budget that your expenses aren't out of line. You live in as cheap a place as possible, you eat inexpensively, you don't go out to eat, etc. In this case, the problem isn't your spending, it is your income. In order to stay out of debt, you'll need to increase your income (get a job). I know that you said that this will slow your studies, but because you are now budgeting, you have an advantage you didn't have before: you now know how short you are each month. You can take a part time job that will earn you just enough income to remain debt free while maximizing your study time. Build up a small emergency fund. Emergencies that you didn't plan for in your budget happen. To remain debt free, you should have some money set aside to cover something like this, so you don't have to borrow when it comes up. The general rule of thumb is 3 to 6 months of expenses, but as a college kid with low expenses and no family to take care of, you won't need a huge fund. $500 to $1000 extra in the bank to cover an unexpected emergency expense could be all it takes to keep you debt free.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfced950704f4900a5c9c7de9bbf87f5",
"text": "I struggle with 0% interest things in my personal life. A responsible me that thinks logically says continue to pay it on time and take advantage of the benefit of the interest free loan you got. It will keep your funds liquid in the case of an emergency, build your credit and teach you self control. Paying it off now has little to no benefit. It does however tie up $3,000 worth of capital you could be using for building interest or leveraging against other purchases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45ffef67391ba0c6ccbc1f34d04b591b",
"text": "\"I'll use similar logic to Dave Ramsey to answer this question because this is a popular question when we're talking about paying off any debt early. Also, consider this tweet and what it means for student loans - to you, they're debt, to the government, they're assets. If you had no debt at all and enough financial assets to cover the cost, would you borrow money at [interest rate] to obtain a degree? Put it in the housing way, if you paid off your home, would you pull out an equity loan/line for a purchase when you have enough money in savings? I can't answer the question for you or anyone else, as you can probably find many people who will see benefits to either. I can tell you two observations I've made about this question (it comes a lot with housing) over time. First, it tends to come up a lot when stocks are in a bubble to the point where people begin to consider borrowing from 0% interest rate credit cards to buy stocks (or float bills for a while). How quickly people forget what it feels (and looks like) when you see your financial assets drop 50-60%! It's not Wall Street that's greedy, it's most average investors. Second, people asking this question generally overlook the behavior behind the action; as Carnegie said, \"\"Concentration is the key to wealth\"\" and concentrating your financial energy on something, instead of throwing it all over the place, can simplify your life. This is one reason why lottery winners don't keep their winnings: their financial behavior was rotten before winning, and simply getting a lot of money seldom changes behavior. Even if you get paid a lot or little, that's irrelevant to success because success requires behavior and when you master the behavior everything else (like money, happiness, peace of mind, etc) follows.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caeb923f77b21e2486ed1b64f5c179df",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
427007d5ed3b07779d7ff4e0d37680d9
|
Can't the account information on my checks be easily used for fraud?
|
[
{
"docid": "02edd927316d3a17f1b61bb55968e196",
"text": "Yes, and there are almost no checks (no pun intended) on people pulling money from your account using a routing number. It is an EXTREMELY insecure system. If you want a real Halloween scare, read this article: Easy Check Fraud Technique Draws Scrutiny. Unfortunately you just have to live with it. If you are curious why this loophole is allowed to continue, consider how hard it is to close it without undermining the convenience of checks. Short of you going to the bank with each person you write a check to and showing ID to validate the transaction, I don't see how you could continue to use a negotiable instrument like this without such a security hole. The ultimate answer is going to have to be replacing checks with other means of payment.",
"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": "14ab055436f15aed3e2ca0ee8ecd6fcf",
"text": "The bottom line is to keep most of your money in accounts with no check privileges and to not give the account numbers for these accounts to anyone. Keep just enough in your checking account for the checks you are going to write.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d75262261aaee4439569628a663c0d7",
"text": "\"That's accurate. Here is another risk with the current checking system, which many people are not aware of: Anyone who knows your checking account number can learn what your balance in that account is. (This is bank-specific, but it is possible at the major banks I've checked.) How does that work? Many banks have a phone line where you can dial up and interact with an automated voice response system, for various customer service tasks. One of the options is something like \"\"merchant check verification\"\". That option is intended to help a merchant who receives a check to verify whether the person writing the check has enough money in their account for the check to clear. If you select that option in the phone tree, it will prompt you to enter in the account number on the check and the amount of the check, and then it will respond by telling you either \"\"there are currently sufficient funds in the account to cash this check\"\" or \"\"there are not sufficient funds; this check would bounce\"\". Here's how you can abuse this system to learn how much someone has in their bank account, if you know their account number. You call up and check whether they've enough money to cash a $10,000 check (note that you don't actually have to have a check for $10,000 in your hands; you just need to know the account number). If the system says \"\"nope, it'd bounce\"\", then you call again and try $5,000. If the system says \"\"yup, sufficient funds for a $5,000 check\"\", then you try $7,500. If it says \"\"nope, not enough for that\"\", you try $6,250. Etcetera. At each step, you narrow the range of possible account balances by a factor of two. Consequently, after about a dozen or so steps, you will likely know their balance to within a few dollars. (Computer scientists know this procedure by the name \"\"binary search\"\". The rest of us may recognize it as akin to a game of \"\"20 questions\"\".) If this bothers you, you may be able to protect your self by calling up your bank and asking them how to prevent it. When I talked to my bank (Bank of America), they told me they could put a fraud alert flag on your account, which would disable the merchant check verification service for my account. It does mean that I have to provide a 3-digit PIN any time I phone up my bank, but that's fine with me. I realize many folks may terribly not be concerned about revealing their bank account balance, so in the grand scheme of things, this risk may be relatively minor. However, I thought I'd document it here for others to be aware of.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1338c98be810a7589d60fb24c4903d79",
"text": "When an someone as esteemed and smart as Donald Knuth tells you the chequing system is busted it's time to close your cheque account, or I guess live with the associated risk. Answer to question, yes your account information can be used to commit fraud on you via your bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a96543e87a7d692090fe7441ce7b12c7",
"text": "I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d946609ef38fb86422a19d3d63a6971",
"text": "Yes this is a huge security loophole and many banks will do nothing to refund if you are scammed. For example for business accounts some Wells Fargo branches say you must notify within 24 hours of any check withdrawal or the loss is yours. Basically banks don't care - they are a monopoly system and you are stuck with them. When the losses and complaints get too great they will eventually implement the European system of electronic transfers - but the banks don't want to be bothered with that expense yet. Sure you can use paypal - another overpriced monopoly - or much better try Dwolla or bitcoin.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7b379bedf230127771cc0de462510532",
"text": "This is the information required to wire money into your account from abroad. They would only need the account number and the ABA (routing) number to withdraw, and it is printed on every check you give.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d5890e675f59e1fbb5cf3627c912696",
"text": "The only way someone can take money out of your account using just your sort code and account number is if you set up a direct debit to pay them (or someone pretending to be you sets up the direct debit). Even with Paperless DD's this can take some time. Anyone who can process debit card transactions can take money from your account if they have your debit card number, expiry date and cvv number. Direct debits do not have an expiry date so they are normally used for paying automatic regular long term bills (like rent, rates, electricity etc). Note, anyone with an ordinary bank account can pay money into account, using your sort code and account number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de461907150698ed96ffed19f2e047fb",
"text": "From personal experience, I can tell you that bank account numbers are not unique. Someone from another branch of my bank was able to withdraw money from my account at my branch because they had the same account number. You are supposed to enter your branch number on the withdrawal slip in front of your account number. The person who got my money did not do this. Because it was at my branch, the teller debited my account for the transaction. I caught this on my monthly statement and immediately complained to my branch manager. He was able to retrieve the withdrawal slip and saw what had happened. He credited my account and said he was going to talk to the teller who should have asked for the branch number and/or should have noticed that the name and address on the withdrawal slip did not match those on my account. I would not have thought that the bank would allow this situation considering how many numbers are available to assign but they did.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da0a33e57f0f0404070c71c19c000933",
"text": "\"First, there are not necessarily two accounts involved. Usually the receiving party can take the check to the bank on which it is drawn and receive cash. In this case, there is only one bank, it can look to see that the account on which the check is drawn has sufficient funds, and make an (essentially irrevocable) decision to pay the bearer. (Essentially irrevocable precisely because the bearer did not necessarily have to present account information.) The more usual case is that the receiving party deposits the check into an account at their own bank. The receiving party's bank then (directly or indirectly - in the US via the Federal Reserve) presents the check to the paying party's bank. At that point if the there are insufficient funds, the check \"\"bounces\"\" and the receiving party's account will be debited. The receiving party's bank knows that account number because, in this case, the receiving party is a customer of the bank. This is why funds from check deposits are typically not available for immediate withdrawal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e11b61c582bfaf936b78eedc373fcc",
"text": "When I last asked a certain large bank in the US (in 2011 or 2012), they didn't offer expiring personal checks. (I think they did offer something like that for business customers.) They also told me that, even if the payee cashes the check a year later and the check bounces, even if it's because I have closed the respective account, he will be able to go to the police and file a report against me for non-payment. (This is what the customer service rep told me on the phone after a bit of prodding, but someone else feel free to improve this answer and fix details or disagree; it's hard to believe and quite outrageous if true.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d797e0c5aeb688f536cd46d2b3308dd",
"text": "\"Here's a hack for getting the \"\"free\"\" checking that requires direct deposit. Some effort to set up, but once everything is in place, it's all autopilot. (If your transfer into savings is higher than your transfer out of savings, you'll build up a nice little stash over time.) I don't know if there are deposit amounts or frequencies that you must have to qualify for the free account, if these are public or secret, or if this works everywhere. If anyone else has experience using this kind of hack, please leave a comment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "43bf814aee8a481c647ff68c9defa496",
"text": "\"As others have noted, in the U.S. a checking account gives you the ability to write a check, while a savings account does not. I think you know what a check is even if you don't use them, right? Let me know if you need an explanation. Personally, I rarely write paper checks any more. I have an account for a small side business, and I haven't bothered to get new checks printed since I moved 6 years ago even though the checks still have my old address, because I've only written I think 3 paper checks on that account in that time. From the bank's point of view, there are all sorts of government regulations that are different for the two types of accounts. But that is probably of little concern to you unless you own a bank. If the software you have bought allows you to do the things you need to do regardless of whether you call the account \"\"savings\"\" or \"\"checking\"\", then ... who cares? I doubt that the banking software police will come to your house and beat you into unconsciousness and arrest you because you labeled an account \"\"checking\"\" that you were supposed to label \"\"savings\"\". If one account type does what you need to do and the other doesn't, then use the one that works.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c78c7ad755e34be77c564bf31073b601",
"text": "I'm guessing you're in the US? If so, yes, you can be prosecuted, but it's unlikely. Fraud crimes are up to a prosecutor to pursue, there are a lot of fraud cases and bystanders take low priority, I'm assuming you're passively complicit, not actively. If this is the case it's best to work with the bank to get your situation cleaned up and move on. These days, most banks have dealt with wire fraud at least once, and they're familiar with cashiers check fraud. A fair warning, the bank will report you, if they think you're involved, so if you are not a complete bystander, you may want to lawyer up. So hopefully you didn't try to spend any of the fraudulent money and hopefully you have proof of a third party, because they will want a connection to that person (name/number/other) to file their report.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47fe6feea862a9e94ee988d3f57832a7",
"text": "You encountered a quite common scam: You are supposed to perform a job, they send you a check for too much money, and you are supposed to pay them some money back. Ten weeks later the check bounces and your money is gone. That's these people's job. They do this all day long. The success rate isn't very high, so they are busy doing this all day. These scammers might have your name and address, but if that is all there is, they can get names and addresses of 100s of people by using the phone book, and they don't. I wouldn't say that it is impossible to turn your name and address into money, but it is hard work. So it is quie unlikely to happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58654a927a52b3436e6c0ccfaf535765",
"text": "Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8c78aabc5f37a828f69b2ed51edda39",
"text": "If you have the expired check in hand and take it back to the bank that issued it to you, I'd think they could do something for you. (I'd hope they would, anyway.) But automatically? I don't think so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bc0051425fa5f3365e51dec08592589",
"text": "I agree with you that smartphone deposits make you more vulnerable to a variety of issues. Checks are completely insecure, since anyone with your routing/account number can create a check, and individuals are less likely to shred or otherwise secure the check properly. Ways to control this risk are:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dec97805d71df6a1e4966b5cb02aa13",
"text": "\"If someone gains access to these data, he could use social engineering approach to impersonate you - i.e. call the American Express and ask tell he he is you and he lost the access to the account and he needs the access to be reset and sent to certain email, and if they doubt it's you he would send them the statement data, even on company letterhead (which he would be able to fake since he has the data from the statements, and AE has no idea how the authentic letterhead looks like). He could also do the opposite trick - like calling your assistant or even yourself and saying something like \"\"I'm from American Express, calling about the transaction at this-and-this date and this-and-this time, this amount, please confirm you are {your name} and your address is {your address}, I need to confirm something\"\" - which would make it appear as he is really from AE since he knows all these details - and then ask you some detail he's missing \"\"for security\"\" - like your birth date or last digits of SSID or anything like that - and then use these details to impersonate you to AE. So putting all this info together where it can be accessed by strangers does have risks. It may not work out if both you and AE personnel are vigilant and follow instructions to the letter, but we know it not always so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77f21ce3d3ec8bae1cde5b264f8112e6",
"text": "POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
00e8f7045c9c154d05b71b74f0a93cd4
|
What are some time tested passive income streams?
|
[
{
"docid": "85b1a08cb97369960f092c4dede5bb8d",
"text": "Dividends are a form of passive income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd5273d1dcd1d4b6c16e0917fb27801b",
"text": "Royalties. (Once you start getting them.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "186949c06eb488b98bb884fff413d4d4",
"text": "Renting a house out using a management company is mostly passive income. Earning affiliate income from companies that pay on a recurring basis is closer to passive income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7b91dc1c07a589d4591d9519b9d8c74",
"text": "Last year was a great opportunity for dividend stocks and MLPs. I have a few which are earning 6-9% of my investment basis cost. Municipal bonds are a good value now. If you have the connections, passive investments in convenience franchises or other commercial property are a good income stream. A Dunkin Donuts used to be an amazing money printing machine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32aaf840826396ad416a1abd2792e59a",
"text": "Any kind of savings account is a passive income stream.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32f65fc97fd635d2e2758c4e3e51da9d",
"text": "I owned and managed a few residential properties. At one time the net cash flow was on the order of $1000 per month. But it was work. Lots of work. I was managing about 7 units. This does not count the gains in capital appreciation which were significant. Using a management company would have put the cash flow at 0 or in the negative and would have lowered the quality of management IMO. Nothing comes for free...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cac2f8096f2ec2234d0b587551f30b9",
"text": "You could buy debt/notes or other instruments that pay out periodically. Some examples are If there is an income stream you can discount the present value and then buy it/own the rights to income stream. Typically you pay a discounted price for the face value and then receive the income stream over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38b1c484d23f6bd6605e7aa55bb6899f",
"text": "Interest payments You can make loans to people and collect interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0232795273db35aec6b64da0b50f514b",
"text": "There are lots of different ways to generate passive income. What is Passive Income? Basically it is income you receive without having to consistently work for it i.e. paid to do your day job or get paid by the hour; instead you do the work once and then receive ongoing payments like a recording artist getting paid royalties or a book author etc... Online Passive income Also some online business models can be great ways to generate passive income, you set up an automated system online to drive traffic and sell products either as the merchant or an affiliate and get paid regularly without having to do any more work... You just need to use SEO or PPC or media buys or online advertising to generate the automated traffic to your website which will have special landing pages and sales funnels that do the conversion and selling for you. If you are an affiliate you don't even have to handle any products, packaging, delivering etc... And if it’s a digital product like software or information products they can be sent straight to the customers automatically online then you can set up a system that can generate true passive income. Time consuming or expensive! However the above mentioned methods of generating passive income tend to require a lot of work or special skills, talent or knowledge and can be expensive or time consuming to set up. Preferred Method Therefore for many people the preferred passive income method is fully-managed hands free property investing or other types of investing for that matter. But for people who want full ownership of the income generating asset then property investing is the best as they can sell and have control over the capital invested, whereas investing in a business for example will have a lot of other variables to consider, like the business sector, the market factors, the management team and even down to individual employee performance. So in my opinion, if you have the money to invest then fully-managed hands free buy-to-let property investing is one of the best types of passive income available to us today. Some of the most popular income generating property assets today in the UK include • Student property • Care Homes • Residential buy-to-let",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "990d7cea7a0d872a8b50cca148e7d234",
"text": "\"This is a common and good game-plan to learn valuable life skills and build a supplemental income. Eventually, it could become a primary income, and your strategic risk is overall relatively low. If you are diligent and patient, you are likely to succeed, but at a rate that is so slow that the primary beneficiaries of your efforts may be your children and their children. Which is good! It is a bad gameplan for building an \"\"empire.\"\" Why? Because you are not the first person in your town with this idea. Probably not even the first person on the block. And among those people, some will be willing to take far more extravagant risks. Some will be better capitalized to begin with. Some will have institutional history with the market along with all the access and insider information that comes with it. As far as we know, you have none of that. Any market condition that yields a profit for you in this space, will yield a larger one for them. In a downturn, they will be able to absorb larger losses than you. So, if your approach is to build an empire, you need to take on a considerably riskier approach, engage with the market in a more direct and time-consuming way, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if those risks play out the wrong way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0e0b365c44284f072a16b31557e837f",
"text": "I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f5cef0c013e144b150e7ae77cdb5141",
"text": "Looks like what you are considering is buying an existing book of clients from a retiring planner. These are hit and miss as some have no connection, but other times that can be quite lucrative. If you want to know more PM me and we can chat about it more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e12ed80eefb5bca7e5891e488a49432",
"text": "This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1328d512f1bbce05712bbb70484c3909",
"text": "The standard advice is to have 3-6 months worth of expenses saved up in a highly liquid savings or money market account. After you have that saved you could look to start investing. I would recommend reading the bogleheads investment wiki (https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started). Even if you aren't planning on following the bogle head's way of passive investing it will give you a lot of good info on options available to you to start investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "738492868cfe3b53ce96b43f677db390",
"text": "Making a profit in trading is not a function of time, it's a function of information, speed, and consistency. Regardless of how much time you spend learning about trading, there is no guarantee that you will ever become profitable because you will always be competing against a counter-party who is either better- or more poorly-informed than you are. Since trading is a zero-sum game, someone is always a winner and someone else is always a loser. So you need to be either better informed than your counter-party, or you need to be as well informed as them but beat them to the punch. You also need to be able to be consistent, or else eventually you will get wiped out when the unexpected happens or you make a mistake. This is why resources such as full-time professional analysts, high-speed trading terminals/platforms, and sophisticated algorithms can provide significant advantages. Personally, I think that people with talent and those kinds of resources would take all my lunch money, so I don't trade and stick to passive investing. One funny story, I once knew a trader who was in the money on a particular trade and went out to have a drink to celebrate. The next day, she remembered that she had forgotten to exercise the options. Luckily, they had expired while in the money, and by rule had been exercised automatically as a result.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18dc11038b704c39f7953a3b7ce11b67",
"text": "I think the dividend fund may not be what youre looking for. You mentioned you want growth, not income. But I think of dividend stocks as income stocks, not growth. They pay a dividend because these are established companies that do not need to invest so much in capex anymore, so they return it to shareholders. In other words, they are past their growth phase. These are what you want to hold when you have a large nest egg, you are ready to retire, and just want to make a couple percent a year without having to worry as much about market fluctuations. The Russel ETF you mentioned and other small caps are I think what you are after. I recently made a post here about the difference between index funds and active funds. The difference is very small. That is, in any given year, many active ETFs will beat them, many wont. It depends entirely on the market conditions at the time. Under certain conditions the small caps will outperform the S&P, definitely. However, under other conditioned, such as global growth slowdown, they are typically the first to fall. Based on your comments, like how you mentioned you dont want to sell, I think index funds should make up a decent size portion of your portfolio. They are the safest bet, long term, for someone who just wants to buy and hold. Thats not to say they need be all. Do a mixture. Diversification is good. As time goes on dont be afraid to add bond ETFs either. This will protect you during downturns as bond prices typically rise under slow growth conditions (and sometimes even under normal conditions, like last year when TLT beat the S&P...)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82cce7e98f05e442a949f64095925756",
"text": "\"I compared investing in real estate a few years ago to investing in stocks that paid double digit dividends (hard to find, however, managing and maintaining real estate is just as hard). After discussing with many in the real estate world, I counted the average and learned that most averaged about 6 - 8% on real estate after taxes. This does not include anything else like Dilip mentions (maintenance, insurance, etc). For those who want to avoid that route, you can buy some companies that invest in real estate or REIT funds like Dilip mentions. However, they are also susceptible to the problems mentioned above this. In terms of other investment opportunities like stocks or funds, think about businesses that will always be around and will always be needed. We won't outgrow our need for real estate, but we won't outgrow our need for food or tangible goods either. You can diversify into these companies along with real estate or buy a general mutual fund. Finally, one of your best investments is your career field - software. Do some extra work on the side and see if you can get an adviser position at a start-up (it's actually not that hard and it will help you build your skill set) or create a site which generates passive revenue (again, not that hard). One software engineer told me a few years ago that the stock market is a relic of the past and the new passive income would be generated by businesses that had tools which did all the work through automation (think of a smart phone application that you build once, yet continues to generate revenue). This was right before the crash, and after it, everyone talked about another \"\"lost decade.\"\" While it does require extra work initially, like all things software related, you'll be discovering tools in programming that you can use again and again in other applications - meaning your first one may be the most difficult. All it takes in this case is one really good idea ...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0df265d0fc10366cd384ff52dbfec00",
"text": "Possible alternative: In my case, the part-time locksmithing is a small enough portion of my I come that I just submit it as hobby income, rather than trying to track it as a separate entity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21e155150e3ba5ad7e9cb5751b147ff3",
"text": "As a general rule of thumb, age and resiliency of your profession (in terms of high and stable wages) in most cases imply that you have the ABILITY to accept higher than average level of risk by investing in stocks (rather than bonds) in search for capital appreciation (rather than income), simply because you have more time to offset any losses, should you have any, and make capital gains. Dividend yield is mostly sough after by people at or near retirement who need to have some cash inflows but cannot accept high risk of equity investments (hence low risk dividend stocks and greater allocation to bonds). Since you accept passive investment approach, you could consider investing in Target Date Funds (TDFs), which re-allocate assets (roughly, from higher- to lower-risk) gradually as the fund approaches it target, which for you could be your retirement age, or even beyond. Also, why are you so hesitant to consider taking professional advice from a financial adviser?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c626a81745be5fed0815f903726cceb",
"text": "As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments. Unfortunately, answers to this question will be somewhat opinion and experience-based. I have two suggestions, however both involve risk, which you will likely experience in any situation. Peer to Peer Lending In my own situation, I've placed a large sum of money into peer-to-peer lending sites, such as LendingClub. LendingClub specifically advertises that 98% of its user base that invests in 100 notes or more of relatively equal size receive positive returns, and I'm sure you'll see similar statements in other similarly established vendors in this area. Historical averages in this industry can be between 5-7%, you may be able to perform above or below this average. The returns on peer to peer lending investments are paid out fairly frequently, as each loan you invest in on the site pays back into your account every time the recipient of the loan makes a payment. If you invest in small amounts / fractions of several hundred loans, you're receiving several small payments throughout the month on various dates. You can withdraw any money you have received back that hasn't been invested, or money you have in the account that hasn't been invested, at any time for personal spending. However, this involves various risks, which have to be considered (Such as someone you've loaned money to on the site defaulting). Rental Property / Property itself I'm also considering purchasing a very cheap home, and renting it out to tenants for passive income. This is something I would consider a possibility for you. On this front, you have the savings to do the same. It would be possible for you to afford the 20% downpayment on a very low cost home (Say, $100,000 or less up to $200,000 depending on your area), but you'd need to be able to pay for the monthly mortgage payment until you had a tenant, and would need to be able to afford any on-going maintenance, however ideally you'd factor that into the amount you charged tenants. You could very likely get a mortgage for a place, and have a tenant that pays you rent that exceeds the amount you pay for the mortgage and any maintenance costs, earning you a profit and therefore passive income. However, rental properties involve risks in that you might have trouble finding tenants or keeping tenants or keeping the property in good shape, and it's possible the property value could decrease. One could also generalize that property is a somewhat 'safe' investment, in that property values tend to increase over time, and while you may not significantly over-run inflation's increase, you may be able to get more value out of the property by renting it out in the mean time. Additional Note on Credit You mention you have a credit card payment that you're making, to build credit. I'd like to place here, for your reference, that you do not need to carry a balance to build credit. Having active accounts and ensuring you don't miss payments builds your history. To be more specific, your history is based off of many different aspects, such as: I'm sure I missed a couple of things on this front, you should be able to find this information with some research. Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas. It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well. You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e74fea104e655bf02e315036375f80b",
"text": "\"Income generated from online sales is not considered \"\"passive income\"\", so you need to be authorized to work in the U.S. Those without work authorization can acquire passive income (through investments, lending, competition/contest earnings, etc.) In order to sell products on eBay (the description you've given leads me to believe that this is operated as a business), you need to be authorized to work in the U.S., and register a business. See:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ea38d521dc9ddf679ca1260bc44b9d4",
"text": "You mean sites like prosper.com? I see that they are growing but is this really substainable when the novely wears off? Also I find the low volatility claim interesting since I thought low vol portfolios would be a hard sell. How have you experienced this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e66746619ffcf4577934749040602793",
"text": "If you have no paycheck, I presume you are doing your own business. That is included. Also, that is only limited to business, Studies, personal growth and other things are different again. Oh, and if you can predict with high probability a high profit event in 5 years time, considering today's climate, I'm V.impressed. I'm relying on having as many basis as possible covered. It's a bit like a lottery (Though the odds are a lot better), the more tickets you have, the better your chances of hitting the big one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0da1c350ee0704b3a89e3d114cd5e5e",
"text": "I have been doing e-filing and I get the return in my account in 10 to 14 days over the past couple of years. It is worth the e-filing cost to get my money back a month faster.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
295bbbf6abfd8498eca6983f12fb2da0
|
How secure is my 403(b)? Can its assets be “raided”?
|
[
{
"docid": "e879f38fa58808c3ac90ce38ebcf6904",
"text": "The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bed398557ab5aed028262e5a1c0a590",
"text": "\"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8eabb4ee0cac8a619ce1562d3648991d",
"text": "\"Your 401K (and IRA) is a legally distinct entity from yourself. In fact, it is a \"\"trust,\"\" and your Administrator is a \"\"trustee,\"\" while you are both creator and benefactor. This fact, and the 10% early withdrawal penalty, makes it immune from most judgments. The IRS can \"\"levy\"\" your 401K or IRA for back taxes, but must waive the 10% penalty (under the 1997 Tax Reform law). That gives them the power to do what most others can't. A \"\"tricky\"\" banker may persuade you to take money out of your 401K to pay the bank. If you do, s/he has won. But s/he can't go after your 401k.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1da2dcdf3961aa33415eaac5f39da5ee",
"text": "\"Hah! Edit: to elaborate, markets are closed. Unless your firm made a bunch of moves before EOD Friday, there's very little they can do to avoid the bloodshed (if there is any after the vote on Sunday) come Monday morning. Not to mention most 401k funds have contractual limits placed on them in terms of how much they can do in terms of buy/sell actions in a given window of time - usually that's a good protection, however in \"\"outlier\"\" occurrences it's a really, really bad thing. Now, if you're in it for the long haul (in your 20s-early 30s) it's no big deal (yes, you'd be better off in a panic if you divested, but short-term drops are somewhat built into the long-term model). If you're about to retire I'd be really, really nervous.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f3f20391a674351bf4cf88b48934415",
"text": "It's odd to me that they manage their own pensions closely enough to divest of anything and that they'd have been invested in private prisons enough to have anything to get rid of. I'm also not sure that I'd feel better as a NYC pensioner knowing that my retirement fund is becoming politicized. In this case it's probably a good thing, but in the future who knows.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "632a3b522f740db1e97e07b5c53b219a",
"text": "Everything here is yours and can be rolled into your new plan or IRA. You can generally move your 403(b) assets into your traditional IRA or into your new employer's plans, assuming your new employer's plan allowing incoming roll overs. You can probably roll your pension out as well. Actually, the right person to ask about this is the company with whom you have your IRA. The easiest and best way to get assets from one tax-sheltered account to another is by contacting the company you want to roll INTO and having them take care of everything for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72f8406a31741459ff9869a0c5d52123",
"text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "905e1874e230a833a96dc43ac34cb6ff",
"text": "\"A well diversified retirement portfolio is going to have some component in cash or near-liquid investments. So I tend to put it all in one place knowing that I can draw on it (at least from the ROTH account) in the event of an emergency. Obviously, you don't want to do this very often, but hopefully emergencies don't happen often either. You also have to attenuate your idea of an emergency so that it doesn't mean \"\"I didn't get a bonus check this year and can't afford gifts for the kids as nice as last year!\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "671a7c03188d20ca748faab01b5e0b28",
"text": "Asset protection is broad subject. In your examples it is certainly possible to have accounts that exist undisclosed from a spouse and legally inaccessible by said spouse. In the US, balances in 401k retirement accounts are exempt from forfeitures in bankruptcy. The only trick to secret stashes is that it involves you having any wealth in the first place, that you don't need to access. It is more worth it, for most people, to use all of their access to wealth to get out of debt, earn claims to property, and save for retirement. This takes up all of their earnings, making hidden wealth of any significant portion to be an impractical pipe dream. But with trust laws, corporate laws, and marriage property laws being different in practically every jurisdiction, there is plenty of flexibility to construct the form of your secret wealth. Cryptocurrency makes it much easier, at the expense of net asset value volatility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28ffc0062a3460bb1ff52241820a905e",
"text": "For such a small amount, I really don't think it's worth the time and effort to withdraw it. Why not roll it over into a traditional IRA or a new 401k / 403b?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c41ff28eba1d099e3365364925679be",
"text": "I said I knew about FEIE. So what happens when you want to open a private tax-deferred pension that is common in most industrialized countries? Now you have capital gains that are not taxed. Uh oh. Oh, you want to work for yourself, have fun paying US social security even though you may never actually receive any benefit and aren't providing anything to the US, oh and that income not being counted in the FEIE. Oh you made a mistake on reporting your retirement account, the US government is now authorized to penalize you 40% of the balance of your retirement savings. That's great that you found an organization that says IRS won't use it for now, but who knows how long that will last. But things like retirement savings and working for yourself must only be for crazy rich people, right?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2bf1c47d53d91b23541aff73656f0c7",
"text": "\"is it worth it? That is for you to judge. The risks are having it blowup in your face, and you having to pay a penalty, or go to jail. The issue is how you keep it secret, and who you keep it secret from. If you have money in a secret account and keep it hidden even though you: You are taking a big risk. If the knowledge of the contents of the secret stash would cause a judge or government agency to make a different decision, you could face penalties ranging from monetary to jail time. The government could also decide that they need to determine the source of the funds. They may want to know if the money was \"\"earned\"\" through illegal means. They will want to determine if the funds should haven taxed not just on the interest but if the original income tax was ever collected. If the amounts are large enough the taxing authority and police will have a lot of fun pulling apart your entire financial history. Oh and the lawyers you pay to keep you out of jail will also have their fun. why do some people do it? They are greedy; or paranoid; or they don't trust others; or they are criminals.\"",
"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": "c22d700fbd117eef17a7c1ab81b51933",
"text": "There are API libraries available to various banks in various programming languages. For example, in Perl there are many libraries in the Finance::Bank:: namespace. Some of these use screen-scraping libraries and talk to the GUI underneath, so they are vulnerable to any changes the bank makes to their interface, but some of the better banks do seem to provide back-end interfaces, which can then be used directly. In either case, you should still be sure that the transactions are secure. Some bank sites have appallingly bad security. :( A good place to start is to call your bank and ask if they offer any programming APIs for accessing their back end.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04bf3102076b8f40d2cadb5470734f44",
"text": "The biggest thing for me still is how they knew 2 months prior to publicly releasing the information that they had been massively breached. And what did they do? Well, they cashed out their stocks and decided to wait a whole 2 months. I will be surprised if they get fined or even jail time though. Too big to imprison.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6032cebf2e997f9a0e8ab8ce5a0903f4",
"text": "It's an infosec rule at my 200 person software company that really doesn't have much of a security risk (i.e. no one would gain much by getting into our records). If it wasn't a rule at equifax, at least on paper, I'll eat my hat or a dictionary or something. To be clear, I'm not claiming I know this, I'm just basing it on experience working in smaller tech companies. And let's put it this way... the failings of big companies are very rarely a *lack* of rules and bureaucracy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "099e15df86c88e40eec0f9aaaa072526",
"text": "\"403b plans are used by school districts, colleges and universities, nonprofit hospitals, charitable foundations and the like for their employees while 401k plans are used by most everybody else. I would suspect that a school district etc can use a 401k plan instead of a 403b plan if it chooses to do so, but the reverse direction is most likely forbidden: a (for-profit) company cannot use a 403b plan. One difference between a 403b plan and a 401k plan is that the employer can choose to offer, and the employee can choose to purchase, stock in the company inside the 401k plan. This option obviously is not available to charities etc. which don't issue stock. Your comment that the 403b plan invests solely in (variable) annuities suggests that the plan administrator is an insurance company and that the employer is moving to more \"\"modern\"\" version that allows investments in mutual funds and the like. Forty years ago, my 403b plan was like that; the only investment choice was an annuity, but some time in the 1980s, the investment choices were broadened to include mutual funds (possibly because the 1986 Tax Reform Act changed the rules governing 403b plans). So, are you sure that your employer is changing from a 403b plan to a 401k plan, or is it just a change of 403b plan administrator from the insurance company to another administrator who offers investment choices other than an annuity? Note, of course, that insurance companies have changed their options too. For example, TIAA (the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association) which was the 403b plan administrator for many schools and colleges became TIAA/CREF (College Retirement Equities Fund) where the CREF mutual funds actually were pretty good investments.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
40d4a122de1e2190621ddbe63b086262
|
Capital Gains in an S Corp
|
[
{
"docid": "73cccbaae914b8dac683a086c810dac6",
"text": "These are all factually correct claims. S-Corporation is a pass-through entity, so whatever gain you have on the corporate level - is passed to the shareholders. If your S-Corp has capital gains - you'll get your pro-rata share of the capital gains. Interest? The same. Dividends? You get it on your K-1. Earned income? Taxed as such to you. I.e.: whether you earn income as a S-Corp or as a sole proprietor - matters not. That's the answer to your bottom line question. The big issue, however, is this: you cannot have more than 25% passive income in your S-Corp. You pass that limit (three consecutive years, one-off is ok) - your S-Corp automatically converts to C-Corp, and you're taxed at the corporate level at the corporate rates (you then lose the capital gains rates, personal brackets, etc). This means that an S-Corp cannot be an investment company. Most (75%+) of its income has to be earned, not passive. Another problem with S-Corp is that people who work as self-proprietors incorporated as S-Corp try to abuse it and claim that the income they earned by the virtue of their own personal performance shouldn't be taxed as self-employed income. IRS frowns upon such a position, and if considerable amounts are at stake will take you all the way up to the Tax Court to prove you wrong. This has happened before, numerously. You should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA/Attorney licensed in your state) to educate you about what S-Corp is and how it is taxed, and whether or not it is appropriate for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "829ff126b899af4b65aa225ce89badc3",
"text": "Lets just get to the point...Ordinary income (gains) earned from S-Corp operations (i.e. income earned after all expenses for providing services or selling products) is passed through to the owners/shareholders and taxed at the owner's personal tax rate. Separately, if an S-Corp earns capital gains (i.e. the S-Corp buys and sells stock, earns dividends from investments, etc), those gains are passed through to the owners and taxed at a capital gains rate Capital gains are not the same as ordinary income (gains). Don't get the two confused, they are as different for S-Corp taxation as they are for personal taxation. In some cases an exception occurs, but only when the S-Corp was formally a C-Corp and the C-Corp had non-distributed earnings or losses. This is a separate issue whereas the undistributed C-Corp gains/losses are treated differently than the S-Corp gains/losses. It takes years of college coursework and work experience to grasp the vast arena of tax. It should not be so complex, but it is this complex. It is not within the scope of the non-tax professional to make sense of this stuff. The CPA exams, although very difficult and thorough, only scrape the surface of tax and accounting. I hope this provides some perspective on any questions regarding business tax for S-Corps and any other entity type. Hire a good CPA... if you can find one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "306bbfcbeb9d36a4dfe629c06c6049d9",
"text": "\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "93b6457e8a48c4363e86f317dbc0934e",
"text": "From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a16cdeba56a7edbdb8277e7c90b16dce",
"text": "\"You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called \"\"Section 121 exclusion\"\". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called \"\"depreciation recapture\"\", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d92ce163cbaa2219366d5a87720ef9",
"text": "You increase the capital account by the additional contributions and retained earnings and decrease the capital account by the distributions of return of capital and/or losses. Distributing gains doesn't change the capital account. So in your case it would be: 1st year we lost money Assuming you lost 20K, and the interests are even, it will look like this: 1st year we break even Nothing changes - you break even, means the balance sheet doesn't change (in this example). 1st year we made money Assume you gained 20K and kept it: If you didn't retain the earnings, it would look the same as case 2 - no change. Note that this is only the financial accounting, tax accounting might look differently. For example, in the US Partnerships (or LLCs taxed as) are pass-through entities, on in case 3 while you retained the earnings, the partners will still be taxed. I'm of course neither CPA nor a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you get a consultation with one. Only a CPA can provide a reliable accounting advice or sign official financial statements, reviews and audits. Only a EA, CPA or an Attorney specializing in tax law can provide a tax advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69cae92454c28e2e4d04cda5494408f7",
"text": "That's really not something that can be answered based on the information provided. There are a lot of factors involved: type of income, your wife's tax bracket, the split between Federal and State (if you're in a high bracket in a high income-tax rate State - it may even be more than 50%), etc etc. The fact that your wife didn't withdraw the money is irrelevant. S-Corp is a pass-through entity, i.e.: owners are taxed on the profits based on their personal marginal tax rates, and it doesn't matter what they did with the money. In this case, your wife re-invested it into the corp (used it to pay off corp debts), which adds back to her basis. You really should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to learn how S-Corps work and how to use them properly. Your wife, actually, as she's the owner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72659982bcc756ea19515bf267862f2d",
"text": "I think you're misunderstanding how S-Corp works. Here are some pointers: I suggest you talk with a EA/CPA licensed in your state and get yourself educated on what you're getting yourself into.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc36a99ffea70f0b1e78475c3ad6fcb7",
"text": "Yes. You incur income tax on the RSU on they date they vest. At this point you own the actual shares and you can decide to sell them or to hold them. If you hold them for the required period, and sell them later, the difference between your price at vesting and the sales price would be taxed as long term capital gains. Caution: if you decide to hold, you are still liable to pay income tax in the year they vest. You have to pay taxes on income that you haven't made yet. This is fairly dangerous: if the stock goes down, you may lose a lot of this tax payment. Technically you could recover some of this through claiming capital losses, but that this is severely restricted: the IRS makes it much easier to increase taxes through gains than reducing taxes through losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d04463611f1cc42a2614271873cb0e89",
"text": "I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a1d3611099cbee3136ec36c06127dd7",
"text": "Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). No. That's exactly what the SO is NQ for. Read more on the differences between ISO and NQSO here. Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). At this point you no longer have NQSO, you have RSU. If you filed 83(b) when you exercised, then you pay capital gains tax when they vest. If you didn't - its ordinary income to you. NQSO is a red herring here since once exercised they no longer exist. If you didn't file 83(b), then when the stock vests the difference between the FMV at vest and the money you spent on it when exercising (if any) is considered wages and taxed as ordinary income (+FICA etc). From that point the RSU becomes a regular stock investment and the capital gains clock starts ticking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4286585f14be963a8f314ca32f310036",
"text": "\"This is actually quite a complicated issue. I suggest you talk to a properly licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Legal advice (from an attorney licensed in your State) is also highly recommended. There are many issues at hand here. Income - both types of entities are pass-through, so \"\"earnings\"\" are taxed the same. However, for S-Corp there's a \"\"reasonable compensation\"\" requirement, so while B and C don't do any \"\"work\"\" they may be required to draw salary as executives/directors (if they act as such). Equity - for S-Corp you cannot have different classes of shares, all are the same. So you cannot have 2 partners contribute money and third to contribute nothing (work is compensated, you'll be getting salary) and all three have the same stake in the company. You can have that with an LLC. Expansion - S-Corp is limited to X shareholders, all of which have to be Americans. Once you get a foreign partner, or more than 100 partners - you automatically become C-Corp whether you want it or not. Investors - it would be very hard for you to find external investors if you're a LLC. There are many more things to consider. Do not make this decision lightly. Fixing things is usually much more expensive than doing them right at the first place.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d9bdb78150f5089baeab672332d02d2",
"text": "Federal income taxes are indeed expenses, they're just not DEDUCTIBLE expenses on your 1120. Federal Income Tax Expense is usually a subcategory under Taxes. This is one of the items that will be a book-to-tax difference on Schedule M-1. I am presuming you are talking about a C corporation, as an S corporation is not likely to be paying federal taxes itself, but would pass the liability through to the members. If you're paying your personal 1040 taxes out of an S-corporation bank account, that's an owner's draw just like paying any of your personal non-business expenses. I would encourage you to get a tax professional to prepare your corporate tax returns. It's not quite as simple as TurboTax Business makes it out to be. ;) Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3bb25844cb10bfb674a0e794e241cf7",
"text": "Capital gains taxes for a year are calculated on sales of assets that take place during that year. So if you sell some stock in 2016, you will report those gains/losses on your 2016 tax return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28736c47950db9528b1fd9ac554aa8c6",
"text": "If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57390fc75c7c0b3a47269f7ea8e90c07",
"text": "\"If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as \"\"buy-back\"\" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the \"\"bought-back\"\" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here). The extra distribution will be treated as dividend. This is very rare for S-Corp, but can happen if it was a C-Corp before. In that case it will be taxed as dividends. Note that options #2, #3 and #4 subject the shareholder to the NIIT, while option #1 subjects the shareholder to FICA/Self Employment tax (and subjects the company to payroll taxes). There might be other options. Your licensed tax adviser will go with you through all the facts and circumstances and will suggest the best way to proceed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc0f5b39efa96f612d974c9271078571",
"text": "As the owner of the S-corp, it is far easier for you to move money in/out of the company as contributions and distributions rather than making loans to the company. Loans require interest payments, 1099-INT forms, and have tax consequences, whereas the distributions don't need to be reported because you pay taxes on net profits regardless of whether the money was distributed. If you were paid interest, disregard this answer. I don't know if or how you could re-categorize the loan once there's a 1099-INT involved. If no interest was ever paid, you just need to account for it properly: If the company didn't pay you any interest and never issued you a 1099-INT form (i.e. you wrote a check to the company, no promissory note, no tax forms, no payments, no interest, etc.) then you can categorize that money as a capital contribution. You can likewise take that money back out of the company as a capital distribution and neither of these events are taxable nor do they need to be reported to the IRS. In Quickbooks, create the following Equity accounts -- one for each shareholder making capital contributions and distributions: When putting money into the company, deposit into your corporate bank account and use the Capital Contribution equity account. When taking money out of the company, write yourself a check and use the Distributions account. At the end of every tax year, you can close out your Contributions and Distributions to Retained Earnings by making a general journal entry. For example, debit retained earnings and credit distributions on Dec 31 every year to zero-out the distributions account. For contributions, do the reverse and credit retained earnings. There are other ways of recording these transactions -- for example I think some people just use a Member Capital equity account instead of separate accounts for contributions and distributions -- and QB might warn you about posting journal entries to the special Retained Earnings account at the end of the year. In any case, this is how my CPA set up my books and it's been working well enough for many years. Still, never a bad idea to get a second opinion from your CPA. Be sure to pay yourself a reasonable salary, you can't get out of payroll taxes and just distribute profits -- that's a big red flag that can trigger an audit. If you're simply distributing back the money you already put into the company, that should be fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af033af3f8b981e4e7147ebc864cc28",
"text": "\"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The \"\"reasonable salary\"\" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
55785768885e4d1ebc54dca1935b89ff
|
How to secure one's effort when working on a contract?
|
[
{
"docid": "4aa33a503e0a58c2362514f8e47c9658",
"text": "\"Anytime you do work without any payment until the work is complete, you are effectively extending credit to the party receiving your service. How much credit you are willing to extend will vary greatly, depending on the amount and the trustworthiness of the party. For example, if you are charging $50 for something, you probably won't bother to collect money upfront, whereas if you are charging $5,000 you probably would collect some upfront. But if the party you are working for is a large financially sound company, the number may be even much higher than $5K as you can trust you will be paid. Obviously there are many factors that go into how much credit you are willing to extend to your customer. (This is why credit reports exist for banks to determine how much credit to extend to you.) As for the specific case you are asking about, which may be classified as a decent amount of work for a small business, I would default to having a written scope of work, a place in the document for both parties to sign, and specify 50% upfront payment and 50% payment at completion. When you receive the signed document and the upfront payment (and possibly even after the check clears), you begin work. I would call this my \"\"default contract\"\" and adjust according to your needs depending on the size of the job and the trustworthiness of the customer. As for your question about how to deposit the check, that depends on what type of entity you are. If you are a sole proprietor you should ask for the checks to be made out to you. If you are a business then the checks should be made out to your business name. You don't need \"\"in trust\"\" or anything similar because your customer, after paying the upfront fee, must trust that you will do the work you promise to do, just like you have to trust that after completing the work you will receive the final payment. This is the reason the default is 50% before and after. Both parties are risking (roughly) the same amount. Tip: having done the \"\"default\"\" contract many times in my career, both as a sole proprietor and a business owner, I can assure you there is a big difference between a potential customer agreeing to something in advance, and actually writing a check. The upfront payment definitely helps weed out those that were never going to end up paying you, even if their intentions were good. Tip 2: be as specific as possible as to what the scope of work will include. If you don't, particularly with software, they'll be adding feature after feature and expecting it to be \"\"included\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfbbd6a3615712f356ba0ae1b8ff2aa7",
"text": "I don't think you need to bother with trust accounts. The point of a trust account is holding funds that aren't yours yet. You take a retainer fee that you have yet to earn. As you work, you bill your hourly rate, your client signs off and you take possession of the funds. You're going to work a project, you'll take a partial payment as a deposit and partial payment upon completion. But this is a payment to you, not money transferred to you to hold until you earn it at a later date. Your contract can specify remedies for missing a deadline, or any other thing that could happen.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7fa5d6e2c6e9414b0e84b77cfb96dcfa",
"text": "\"EmploymentProTip, especially regarding boilerplate employment forms and larger companies: When you get to something disagreeable like that, line it out and initial it. I've done it several times over the years and nobody's ever come back to ask me about it. (Because they don't look at it - they just file it). **IF** they ever tried to enforce it, you just tell them to take a look at your contract. They're either going to end up with a) no enforceable noncompete or b) since they never counter-signed the agreement, it's not a valid contract (which still means - no noncompete) Note that (b) above might come back to bite you if **you** need to depend on the employment contract, but I'm not sure that's ever happened in the modern \"\"employees are disposable resources\"\" age. NOTE: While I am an attorney, this is not legal advice. Please seek the advice of an attorney licensed in your state.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba7722e7261c515046b9329c5c3fdafa",
"text": "Yes he did. But what Cuban means is that your motivation has to be for the love of the work, not the exit. If you constantly have one eye on the door, it's going to distract you from building something great. When the time is right, an obvious exit will present itself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c58daa07acae659b5335af1ae1dfa254",
"text": "Keep in mind a good lawyer will have the contract cover the five D's: Its really best to lay these things out ahead of time. I watched, first hand, two friends start a business. When they were broke and struggling the worked very well together. Then the money started rolling in. Despite exceeding their dreams they were constantly at each other's throats fighting and bickering over stupid stuff. In the end, because they had decent legal docs, they both were able to pull money out of the business. Had that not been worked out they would have destroyed the business so that no one would have profited.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81313094b66471c9a79a5e748296daf5",
"text": "Get a lawyer. If you're having legal issues - get a lawyer. If you're having contract issues - get a lawyer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40e9d293bd41571c2c549d53e800c95e",
"text": "If it changes, should get new bids. That will prevent making stupid irrelevant changes. Leaving a contract open ended so contractors can come back for more money over and over and over just isn't smart and is an open call for corruption.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48ded5000df4ac102a0442e44683b48e",
"text": "In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb7fc910fe1d242fcc4a395828b5462",
"text": "\"This isn't negotiations anymore. They are trying to change the deal after the fact. Stop negotiating and tell them they are bound to the agreement they signed. They are leaning on you because they know you are small and likely can't fight them. Document every conversation. Do not allow them to keep pushing after they've signed the agreement. They accepted your bid (after giving your pricing to a competitor, which is shitty and should have been your first red flag). Then they started working on you. At that point your answer should have been \"\"we have a verbal agreement of x services for y price. A different scope of work is not scalable and would require a new quote.\"\" At this point you can either accept that they will continue to beat you up, or you can jam the contract down their throats until they agree or walk away. I've been in a situation like this before. A major multinational asked for bid pricing that was agreed to be estimated only based on very loose requirements. Then they handed us a contract with that pricing included as \"\"not to exceed\"\". We ended up walking away. It sounds like you may want to do the same if you can. Big companies often will have legal and payables departments that basically exist to fight any obligation to pay out money. In our case shortly after we ran into someone in our industry who'd worked with that company, and they said to assume that company would reject 30% of all invoices we sent. If nothing else, to delay payment just a bit longer so they could keep earning interest on the money. Also, in the future I wouldn't turn away work until you are under a signed contract for a big project like this. You can't rely on such a contract to come through. If they drag feet and your schedule is full that's on them, or you bring in additional help or subcontract the work to deliver.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2e2d820b8ce55de76713014e9e6a76d",
"text": ">provide cheap, commoditized services. This is crux to the article's argument. But the point should be taken from the article that you need to value your time (so there is a higher chance of success with the business endeavor). If you can hire someone else to do other (lower level) tasks (i.e. farm out, delegate, contract) you free up time for yourself to do those tasks that bring more results to your efforts. And hence has more value. Perhaps this is where the [80/20 rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) comes into play.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24815a52609847107b389c44b91c9565",
"text": "Me too. Haven't failed because it's shit that I do/did for free. There have have instances where if I didn't have a saved up cushion to fall back on times would have been hard waiting to get paid on some municipal and corporate contracts (can take up to 90 days sometimes).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbce3cbd9575790b00f7cbb2ec0986f7",
"text": "\"To take a different tack from qdot - it is advice. Maybe good, maybe bad. In the early 1990s I did exactly what you are intending to do and was stunned at the expenses involved in maintaining the company - primarily the accounting costs. This would have all been different if I'd been making a lot more money out of the situation, but the work was on the side, a few hours a week here and there, and I closed the \"\"business\"\" after just one year. Probably broke even on the deal, but certainly did not come out in front. I'd also strongly recommend you take a look at issues like basic book keeping, claiming VAT, setting up corporate bank accounts, and the like. Whether it is \"\"not a lot of work\"\" is purely a personal thing - some folks breeze through it all, some hate it. Time Is Money. My 0.02.\"",
"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": "4b370f4cf544b9d16301ff173ab8e399",
"text": "The essential (and obvious) thing to avoid getting back into debt (or to reduce debt if you have it) is to make your total income exceed your total expenses. That means either increasing your income or reducing your total expenses. Either take effort. Basically, you need a plan. If your plan is to increase income, work out how. If the plan is to increase hours in your current, you need to allow for your needs (sleep, rest, etc) and also convince your employer they will benefit by paying you to work more hours. If your intent is to increase your hourly rate, you need to convince a current or prospective employer that you have the capacity, skills, etc to deliver more on the job, so you are worth paying more. If your intent is to get qualifications so you can get a better paying job, work out how much effort (studying, etc) you will apply, over how long, what expenses you will carry (fees, textbooks, etc), and how long you will carry them for (will you accept working some years in a higher paying job, to clear the debt?). Most of those options involve a lot of work, take time, and often mean carrying debt until you are in a position to pay it off. There is nothing wrong with getting a job while studying, but you have to be realistic about the demands. There is nothing sacrosanct about studying that means you shouldn't have a job. However, you need to be clear how many hours you can work in a job before your studies will suffer unnecessarily, and possibly accept the need to study part time so you can work (which means the study will take longer, but you won't struggle as much financially). If your plan is to reduce expenses, you need a budget. Itemize all of your spend. Don't hide anything from that list, no matter how small. Work out which of the things you need (paying off debt is one), which you can get rid of, which you need to reduce - and by how much. Be brutal with reducing or eliminating the non-essentials no matter how much you would prefer otherwise. Keep going until you have a budget in which your expenses are less than your income. Then stick to it - there is no other answer. Revisit your budget regularly, so you can handle things you haven't previously planned for (say, rent increase, increase fees for something you need, etc). If your income increases (or you have a windfall), don't simply drop the budget - the best way to get in trouble is to neglect the budget, and get into a pattern of spending more than you have. Instead, incorporate the changes into your budget - and plan how you will use the extra income. There is nothing wrong with increasing your spend on non-essentials, but the purpose of the budget is to keep control of how you do that, by keeping track of what you can afford.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1484da23928ea9ad33dfc7b4d4ebfa0b",
"text": "What city are you in? > I got a call for contract work and it only lasted two weeks. This can happen. Sometimes contracts don't work out. > With that contract I was finally getting paid what I was getting paid at my last permanent position, but again I did not receive the same benefits as a full time employee. That contract let me go after 18 months due to policy that they couldn't string contractors along. This is very common. Unfortunately due to a court case involving Microsoft contractors 25-30 years ago, many firms limit contracts to a hard stop at 18 months - 2 years. Not all firms have this policy. I am interested what city you are in. My career has taken me throughout flyover country, and finding 6 figure contracts has always been reasonably achievable. Most cities appeared to have a shortage of workers with 5+ years experience in most specializations. Fellow IT contractors have felt that IT unemployment insurance is $45 per hour jobs where you compete with H1B body shops, since those almost never get filled. It sounds like you are in an economically depressed area.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7561647c86ee2f2e4b5a95ab543ff10a",
"text": "You are planning on signing a contract for, likely, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and plan on paying, likely, tens of thousands of dollars in a deposit. For a house that is not built yet. This isn't particularly unusual, lots of people do this. But, you need a lawyer. Now, before you sign anything. Your agent may be able to recommend a lawyer, but beware; your agent may have a conflict of interest here.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
84cd94dd212ab105dfe2dea3e1c420b9
|
Why is it not a requirement for companies to pay dividends?
|
[
{
"docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a",
"text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1754c182047fa24bb9978d4df8af2c42",
"text": "Cash flow is needed for expansion, either to increase manufacturing capacity or to expand the workforce. Other times companies use it to purchase other companies. Microsoft and Google have both used their cash or stocks to purchase companies. Examples by Google include YouTube, Keyhole (Google Earth), and now part of Motorola to expand into Phones. If you are investing for the future, you don't want a lot of dividends. They do bring tax issues. That is not a big problem if you are investing in an IRA or 401K. It is an issue if the non-tax-defered mutual fund distributes those dividends via the 1099, forcing you to address it on your taxes each year. Some investors do like dividends, but they are looking for their investments to generate cash. Who would require it? Would it be an SEC requirement? Even more government paperwork for companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ff4b83c8e5627b710d84964fc9b0a85",
"text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d44307f7d77cfc92dde439165d51a5c",
"text": "You have plenty of good answers, but I want to add something that might help you grow your intuition on stocks. There are a lot of differences between the example I am going to give and how the stock market actually runs, but the basic concepts are the same. Lets say your friend asks you if he can borrow some money to start up a company, in exchange you will have some ownership in this company. You have essentially just bought yourself some stock. Now as your friend starts to grow, he is doing well, but he needs more cash to buy assets in order to grow the company more. He is forced with an option, either give you some of the profits, or buy these assets sooner. You decide you don't really need the money right now, and think he can do a lot better with spending the money to buy stuff. This is essentially the same as a company electing to not pay dividends, but instead invest into the future. You as a stock holder are fine with it since you know the money is going toward investing in the future. Even if you never get paid a dividend, as a company grows, you can then turn around and sell the stock to someone else for more money then you gave originally. Of course you always take the risk of having the company failing and loosing some if not all of your investment, but that is just the risk of the market.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0fd8ecaa4e48f0176054c42c39d7c412",
"text": "\"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it \"\"wasting money\"\" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701).\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c4b1904fafa3ab88a40e26f539a6fc4",
"text": "\"Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't. Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it. 2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such \"\"necessities\"\" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts. 3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out. 4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not. 5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it? But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you? 6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google \"\"Dividend Aristocrats\"\". 7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly? You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc59461adf247c800ede67afc91e7d2e",
"text": "I would prefer a dividend paying company, rather than share appreciation. And I would prefer that the dividends increase over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7a74283b5d312d5d5b84245bf4dc5e0",
"text": "\"In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as \"\"dividends\"\". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the \"\"dividend\"\") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out \"\"dividends\"\". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do \"\"dividends\"\" in this or some other convoluted way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "709d76dc519d425b8b5da7e48547fd43",
"text": "\"Dividend yields can also reflect important information about the company's status. For example, a company that has never lowered or stopped paying dividends is a \"\"strong\"\" company because it has the cash/earnings power to maintain its dividend regardless of the market. Ideally, a company should pay dividends for at least 10 years for an investor to consider the company as a \"\"consistent payer.\"\" Furthermore, when a company pays dividend, it generally means that it has more cash than it can profitably reinvest in the business, so companies that pay dividends tend to be older but more stable. An important exception is REIT's and their ilk - to avoid taxation, these types of funds must distribute 90% of their earnings to their shareholders, so they pay very high dividends. Just look at stocks like NLY or CMO to get an idea. The issue here, however, is two fold: So a high dividend can be great [if it has been paid consistently] or risky [if the company is new or has a short payment history], and dividends can also tell us about what the company's status is. Lastly, taxation on dividend income is higher than taxation on capital gains, but by reinvesting dividends you can avoid this tax and lower your potential capital gain amount, thus limiting taxes. http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/highdiv_research.pdf is an excellent paper on dividend yields and investing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4fe313697ab1f1eda3dfb44d0d27106",
"text": "Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. I'm sorry, but scrip issues are free (for all ordinary shareholders) and are in proportion to existing share holding. No payment is required from shareholders. So instead of having 10 $1 shares, the shareholder (if accepts) now could have 20 50p shares, if it was a one-for-one scrip issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10d8658ae1f278bd82771c88cacf32fa",
"text": "The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets.",
"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": "fa8e0c64174269d2bd8ace9c51271d15",
"text": "The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34c9f459817d83133cb77ce55d4178e9",
"text": "\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "521df5e113f22567afd3acdd292d5b3f",
"text": "It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions.",
"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": "8275ea015abe08b1d099c7fdeb640a42",
"text": "It is just a different category of stock issued by a company that gives its owners different treatment when it comes to dividend payment and a few other financial transactions. Preferred stock holders get treated with some preference with regard to the company's profits and assets. For example, dividends are typically guaranteed to preferred stock holders whereas the leadership in the company can elect at any time not to pay dividends to common stockholders. In the event the company is liquidated, the preferred stockholders also get to be in line ahead of common stockholders when the assets are distributed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac33ea50dc277176327736a8f2fae978",
"text": "\"I think this is possible under very special conditions. The important part of the description here is probably retired and rich. The answers so far apply to people with \"\"normal\"\" incomes - both in the sense of \"\"not rich\"\" and in the sense of \"\"earned income.\"\" If you sit at the top tax bracket and get most of your income through things like dividends, then you might be able to win multiple ways with the strategy described. First you get the tax deduction on the mortgage interest, which everyone has properly noted is not by itself a winning game - You spend more than you save. BUT... There are other factors, especially for the rich and those whose income is mostly passive: I'm not motivated enough on the hypothetical situation to come up with a detailed example, but I think it's possible that this could work out. In any case, the current answers using \"\"normal sized\"\" incomes and middle tax brackets don't necessarily give the insight that you might hope if the tax payer really is unusually wealthy and retired.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
19edf69eefc43819fa14b8101accbac1
|
How Should I Go About Buying a Car? (College Student)
|
[
{
"docid": "509f6ff2ce216cbcf9f81b0460679e57",
"text": "So you want to buy a car but have no money saved up.... That's going to be hard!! I'd suggest you get a part-time job, save up and buy a used car. Even with the minimum wage pay in the U.S., if you are in the U.S., you could save up and buy a car in less than a month. This route would be the quickest way for you to get a car but it would also teach you the responsibility of having one since it appears you have never owned a car before. Now the car will most definitely not be fancy or look like the cars that your peer's parents bought but at least it will get you from point A to point B. I'd look on Craigslist or your local neighborhood for cars that have not moved in a while or have for sale signs. Bring a mechanically inclined friend with you and contact the owner and explain them your situation. There are nice people out there that would give you deep discounts based on the fact that you are a student trying to get by. Now you have to get registration and insurance. There are many insurance companies that give discounts to students as well who have good GPAs and driving records. If you happen to get a car for a good deal, take good car of it. Once you graduate and further your career, you can resell it for a profit. I also would not suggest you get any loans for a car given your situation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "15c15857ff5c581f243a3b1e99ffd3f1",
"text": "If you have no credit score it is generally far easier and more affordable to establish credit the cheapest way possible, which is usually in the form of a small credit card (student card if you are a student, low credit line unsecured, or even secured if you need). Your local bank/credit union will usually be keen to offer you something to start out, but you can also apply online to some of the major credit card vendors. As always, look out for annual fees, etc. In general, trying to get a larger loan to establish credit will cost you a lot as you will not qualify for any legitimate 0% or ultra-low APR car loans - those are reserved for people with established and generally pretty good credit. I expect you'll find a car loan that will have a lower APR than you could get investing your money otherwise - especially if you do not have established excellent credit - to simply be a phantom (you won't find it), and even if you could it is more risky than it is worth. Furthermore, if establishing credit is important to you (such as for buying a house down the road), you can build an excellent credit score without ever having a car loan. So you don't have to buy a car on borrowed money just to hope to get approved for a house some day - it's just not a requirement. Finally, I urge you to make a decision on the best car for you in your situation, ignoring the credit score - especially if you are more than 3-5+ years away from buying a house. Everything else about buying a car is more important - the actual cost of the car, year, mileage, suitability for your needs, gas mileage, maintenance and insurance costs, etc. Then, at the very end of your decision making process, ensure that buying the car would not put you dangerously low on savings by squeezing your emergency fund. Decide if you really need a loan or as expensive of a car, considering the costs over the expected life of you owning the car (or at least the next 2-5 years). Never get trapped into just thinking about monthly payments, which hide the true cost of loans and buying beyond what you can afford to purchase today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0fe33895155584f1300c18b4cf9ef9f",
"text": "Presumably you need a car to get to work, so let's start with the assumption that you need to buy something to replace the car you just lost. The biggest difficulty to overcome in buying a car is the concept of the monthly payment. Dealers will play games with all of the numbers to massage a monthly payment that the buyer can swallow, but this usually doesn't end up giving the customer the best deal. The 18 month term is not normal for a lease, typically you'll see 24 or 36 months. You are focusing on another goal of paying your student loans by then which would free up much more money for other wants (like a car) but at what cost? The big difficulty of personal finance is the mental mind game of delaying gratification for greater long-term benefit. You are focusing on paying your student loans now so that you can be free of that debt and have more flexibility for the future. Good. You're tempted to spend another $5400 (assuming no down-payment or other surprise fees) to drive a car for 18 months. That doesn't sound any wiser than $5,000 for an unreliable used car that gave you more problems than you bargained for. Presumably you got some percentage of that money back from the insurance company when the car was totaled, but even if not, the real lesson should be finding a car that you can afford up-front, but also one that you can still use when the loan is paid off (like your education--that investment will keep giving even when the loans are a distant memory). My advice would be to look for a car that has about 30k miles on it and pay for it as quickly as possible, then drive it at least for 70-120k more miles before replacing it. You may wish for a newer car, especially in 3 or 4 more years when it starts to show its age, but you'll also thank yourself when you can buy a newer better car with cash and break out of the monthly payment game that dealers try to push on you. You might even enjoy negotiating with car salesmen when you see through their manipulations and simply work for the best cash price you can get.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "094aa04c581a0d869f01bc839b318bd4",
"text": "You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can.",
"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": "d2aa9ba776cab68fb9f0bd1333bbea3b",
"text": "\"You can find out the most money they will loan you for a car loan when you approach your current bank/credit union. They should be willing to layout options based on your income, and credit history. You then have to decide if those terms work for you. There are several dangers with getting loan estimates, they may be willing to lend you more than you can actually handle. They think you can afford it, but maybe you can't. They may also have a loan with a longer term, which does bring the monthly cost down, but exposes you to being upside down on the loan. You then use this a a data point when looking at other lenders. The last place you look is the auto dealer. They will be trying to pressure you on both the loan and the price, that is not the time to do doing complex mental calculations. The Suntrust web page was interesting, it included the quote: The lowest rate in each range is for LightStream's unsecured auto loan product and requires that you have an excellent credit profile. It also induced the example the rate of 2.19% - 4.24% for a 24 to 36 month loan of $10,000 to $24,999 for a used car purchased from a dealer. Also note that my local credit union has a new/used loan at 1.49%, but you have to be a member. Sunstrust seems to be in the minority. In general a loan for X$ and y months will have a lower rate if it is secured with collateral. But Suntrust is offering unsecured loans (i.e. no collateral) at a low rate. The big benefit for their product is that you get the cash today. You can get the cash before you know what you want to buy. You get the cash before you have negotiated with the dealer. That makes that step easier. Now will they in the near future ask for proof you bought a car with the money? no idea. If you went to the same web page and wanted a debt consolidation loan the rate for the same $ range and the same months is: 5.49% - 11.24% the quote now changes to: The lowest rate in each range requires that you have an excellent credit profile. I have no idea what rate they will actually approve you for. It is possible that if you don't have excellent credit the rate rises quickly, but 4.24% for the worst auto loan is better than 5.49% for the best debt consolidation. Excellent Credit Given the unique nature of each individual’s credit situation, LightStream believes there is no single definition for \"\"excellent credit\"\". However, we find individuals with excellent credit usually share the following characteristics: Finally, it should be noted again that each individual situation is different and that we make our credit judgment based on the specific facts of that situation. Ultimately our determination of excellent credit is based on whether we conclude that there is a very high likelihood that our loan will be repaid in a full and timely manner. All the rates mentioned in this answer are from 15 July 2017.\"",
"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": "fe53fc578ef231eb4f000c990378512f",
"text": "You have a good start (estimated max amount you will pay, estimated max down payment, and term) Now go to your bank/credit union and apply for the loan. Get a commitment. They will give you a letter, you may have to ask for it. The letter will say the maximum amount you can pay for the car. This max includes their money and your down payment. The dealer doesn't have to know how much is loan. You also know from the loan commitment exactly how much your monthly payment will be in the worst case. If you have a car you want to trade in, get an written estimate that is good for a week or so. This lets you know how much you can get from selling the car. Now visit the dealer and tell them you don't need a loan, and won't be trading in a car. Don't show them the letter. After all the details of the purchase are concluded, including any rebates and specials, then bring up financing and trade-in. If they can't beat the deal from your bank and the written estimate for the car you are selling, then the deal is done. Now show them the letter and discuss how much down they need today. Then go to the bank for the rest of the money. If they do have a better loan deal or trade in then go with the dealer offer, and keep the letter in your pocket. If you go to the dealer first they will confuse you because they will see the price, interest rate, length of loan, and trade in as one big ball of mud. They will pick the settings that make you happy enough, yet still make them the most money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64cf0d2338f6ae238a4a3a8d17dd71a9",
"text": "\"Any one of your three options is viable and has its advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I would go for the used option, but I am can-do kind of person. If you don't like micro-managing a car, you may prefer leasing. A new car is sort of the middle of the road option. Leasing will be most expensive and most liability. If you have an accident, the leasing arrangements are designed to extract money from you... heavily. Even a minor accident can require you to pay for expensive repairs, usually much more expensive than if you had your own car fixed. So, not only will you pay more per month, but your accident liability will be a lot higher. With your own car, you will need to sell it (or bring it back to the UK) obviously. A used car will be the cheapest option. A non-descript used car from the local area can also make you \"\"blend in\"\" and be less like to be targeted by a criminal as an outsider. As long as you stay away from dealers and buy the car from a private person of good reputation, you have an odds-on chance of getting a decent car. Make sure you check out the person and make sure they are \"\"real\"\". Some dealers, called \"\"curbstoners\"\", try to pretend to be original owners. You can always spot such frauds because the title will be new. Make sure the same owner has had the car for at least 3-4 years and that it says that on the title. Also, try to buy from somebody who is financially well off--they have less reason to try to screw you. Students, people under 30 and working class are bad people to buy from. Married professionals over age 35 are the right kind of person to buy from.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "438bad75d87d85c9b5fcb2144e7da298",
"text": "Ideally you would negotiate a car price without ever mentioning: And other factors that affect the price. You and the dealer would then negotiate a true price for the car, followed by the application of rebates, followed by negotiating for the loan if there is to be one. In practice this rarely happens. The sales rep asks point blank what rebates you qualify for (by asking get-to-know-you questions like where you work or if you served in the armed forces - you may not realize that these are do-you-qualify-for-a-rebate questions) before you've even chosen a model. They take that into account right from the beginning, along with whether they'll make a profit lending you money, or have to spend something to subsidize your zero percent loan. However unlike your veteran's status, your loan intentions are changeable. So when you get to the end you can ask if the price could be improved by paying cash. Or you could try putting the negotiated price on a credit card, and when they don't like that, ask for a further discount to stop you from using the credit card and paying cash.",
"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": "546e467b6c8c0761735740fb3cae79cf",
"text": "sadly, it is illegal in most states to buy a car directly from the manufacturer. as such, most manufacturers do not offer the option even where it is legal. if you really do know exactly what you want (model, color, options, etc.) i recommend you write down your requirements and send it to every dealer in town (via email or fax). include instructions that if they want your business, they are to reply via email (or fax) with a price within 7 days. at least one dealer will reply, and you can deal with whoever has the best price. notes:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7577a8c25ed9cc6e1deef21bd12ed1a",
"text": "One point I don't see above: Consumer's Union (the nonprofit which publishes Consumer Reports) has a service where, for a small fee, they'll send you information about how much the car and each option cost the dealer, how much the dealer is getting back in incentive money from the manufacturer, and some advice about which features are worthwhile, which aren't, and which you should purchase somewhere other than the dealer. Armed with that info, you can discuss the price on an equal footing, negotiating the dealer's necessary profit rather than hiding it behind bogus pricing schemes. Last time I bought a new car, I got this data, walked into the dealer with it visible on my clipboard, offered them $500 over their cost, and basically had the purchase nailed down immediately. It helped that I as willing to accept last year's model and a non-preferred color; that helped him clear inventory and encouraged him to accept the offer. ($500 for 10 minutes' work selling to me, or more after an hour of playing games with someone else plus waiting for that person to walk in the door -- a good salesman will recognize that I'm offering them a good deal. These days I might need to adjust that fair-profit number up a bit; this was about 20 years ago on an $8000 car... but I'm sure CU's paperwork suggests a current starting number.) It isn't quite shelf pricing. But at least it means any haggling is based on near-equal knowledge, so it's much closer to being a fair game.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4035dd53cf08a9a1e6622434653193",
"text": "As someone who was just recently a salesman at Honda, I'd recommend buying a Honda instead :). If you really prefer your Toyota, I always found quote-aggregation services (Truecar, I'm blanking on others) very competitive in their pricing. Alternatively, you could email several dealerships requesting a final sale price inclusive of taxes and tags with the make, model, and accessories you'd wish to purchase, and buy the vehicle from them if your local dealership won't match that price. Please keep in mind this is only persuasive to your local dealership if said competitors are in the same market area (nobody will care if you have a quote from out-of-state). As many other commenters noted, you should arrange your own financing. A staple of the sales process is switching a customer to in-house financing, but this occurs when the dealership offers you better terms than you are getting on your own. So allow them the chance to earn the financing, but don't feel obligated to take it if it doesn't make sense fiscally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abeb0190ccb8b7150937156566d9cf42",
"text": "\"This is my opinion as a car nut. It depends on what you want out of a car. For your situation (paying cash, want to keep the car long-term but also save money) I recommend seriously considering a slightly used vehicle, maybe 2 or 3 years old, or a \"\"certified pre-owned vehicle\"\". Reasons: Much less expensive than a brand new car because the first two years have the biggest depreciation hit. Cars come with a 4-year warranty, so a 3 year old car will still be in warranty. Yes, a certified pre-owned car will have a bit of a premium compared to a private-party used car, but the peace of mind of knowing it's in good shape is worth the extra cost considering you want to keep it long term. Consumer Reports will have good advice on the best values in used cars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40b2b3a47d011c6b8410fc6fae9440ff",
"text": "I have used car buying services through Costco and USAA. Twice with a Ford, and once with a Honda. In all instances I was directed to sales people that were uncommonly friendly and pleasant to work with. I was given a deep discount without any negotiation. In two of the three cases I did not have a trade. In one case I had a trade, and negotiated a deeper discount then was originally offered. Did I get a good deal? Eh, who knows? Really it depends what your goal is. If your goal is to avoid negotiation, avoid idiot salesmen, and receive a good discount then a quality car buying service may be for you. My research, a few years old, indicated Costco's program was better then the USAA one. If your goal is get a deep as a discount as possible on a new car, well then you have some work cut out for you. Keep some hand sanitizer handy when you meet one of the slime ball salesmen. Keep in mind that not everyone understand the difference between the words value and cheap. If your goal is to pay as little as possible for quality transportation. Avoid most dealers and new cars. But I don't think that is what you are looking for.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9bd6868907ca84eb55928b86cb73293e
|
Smart to buy a house in college?
|
[
{
"docid": "34b8238b9b341a369a39f1f688b488d3",
"text": "\"If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably \"\"Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate,\"\" not \"\"is it smart to buy a house in college.\"\" In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck.\"",
"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": "54b7f5a8f33f6c94d368f633b3820abe",
"text": "\"People have lost money buying houses in good to great neighborhoods. It's a pretty large red flag that you state this so clearly \"\"the neighborhood is pretty bad.\"\" I'd rather buy a bad house in a great neighborhood, and spend my weekends fixing it up, turning sweat equity into real equity. A two year bet? I'd pass. Close to the school, high demand area, and my answer might change. (And, \"\"welcome, stranger\"\")\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e751ad46b15dcfed77f406adfa10c5dd",
"text": "I've heard success stories but personally, I was considering it and I'm so glad I didn't. I ended up hating the atmosphere; left after one semester. To take care of that house I rent out, I'd need to hire someone, or drive 2.5h each way for anything that needed my attention. If you plan to stay in the area, I'd consider the housing prices, the rental market, considering the responsibility of maintenance, your expected margin (trust me, it will be lower. I've never heard a landlord say he didn't encounter significant unintended expenses.) It's such a unique situation, it really requires more detail. After all, you'd be saving rent, have control over the house and who lives there, but you have a whole hell of a lot of responsibility. I met one guy who had basically became the house's mom because he had a vested interest and was always cleaning up spills, preventing staining or damage to the paint, facing awkward social situations as they tried to chase down rent. With the right people I've seen it go very well. Oh, one more caveat. With a live-in super', they can provide notice of any necessary repairs instantly and from there, the clock starts. They can legally withhold rent until the repairs are completed and if you're not too liquid after that down payment and the mortgage payments, plus school, etc.. this could put you between a rock and some hard ass creditors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1db11ee8f2a1f41b9ccf17f03879e65b",
"text": "\"NORMALLY, you don't want to buy in a bad neighborhood. The one exception is \"\"gentrification,\"\" that is middle class people are moving in because of a good location (which you seem to have). The other important thing to do is to cover your mortgage. Four \"\"guys\"\" at $500 a month will do for an $1800 mortgage. The nice thing is that you are your own tenant for two years and can watch the place. The downside of the neighborhood may be that you can't rent the place to four \"\"girls\"\" or two girls and two guys even after you leave; it will always have to be \"\"guys.\"\" I'd advise most people to pass. With your financial standing and entrepreneurial background, you might just be able to take this risk, and learn from it for your future dealings if it doesn't pan out. (Donald Trump \"\"cut his teeth\"\" on a slum complex in Cincinnati.) Hear what I (and others) have to say, then do what \"\"feels right,\"\" based on your best judgment, of which you probably have plenty.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d9b3d137a9a7b62ce07f8c493bc452fd",
"text": "\"As Yishani points out, you always have to do due diligence in buying a house. As I mentioned in this earlier post I'd highly recommend reading this book on buying a house associated with the Wall Street Journal - it clearly describes the benefits and challenges of owning a house. One key takeaway I had was - on average houses have a \"\"rate of return\"\" on par with treasury bills. Its best to buy a house if you want to live in a house, not as thinking about it as a \"\"great investment\"\". And its certainly worth the 4-6 hours it takes to read the book cover to cover.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1341e48962baac52755c3d92cdd4d9c",
"text": "the total principal is also dropping - you mean you're paying it down, right? All else the same, if you found a house whose payments are less than rent, and planned to stay long term, buying can make sense. But let's not forget the other costs and risks. How badly do you want to be a homeowner? Adding image from another post here: This shows that housing prices have fallen below the long term trend line and equilibrium level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a33d982f23e79ac83614f74dd4c8f6a",
"text": "\"A home actually IS a terrible investment. It has all the traits of something you would NEVER want to plunge your hard-earned money into. The only way that buying a house makes good money sense is if you pay cash for it and get a really good deal. It should also be a house you can see yourself keeping for decades or until you're older and want something easier to take care of. Of course, nothing can replace \"\"sense of ownership\"\" or \"\"sense of pride\"\" other than owning a house. And your local realtor is banking (really, laughing all the way to the bank) on your emotions overcoming your smart money savvy. This post really goes to work listing all the reasons why a house is a horrible investment. Should be required reading for everyone about to buy a house. Why your house is a terrible investment - jlcollinsnh.com TLDR; - You must decide what is more important, the money or the feelings. But you can't have both. If you read the article linked and still want to buy a house...then you probably should.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7319e7d344e18f21491dba0ebe7e93f6",
"text": "All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07b710be19ecd9d427a1c15c598c99b9",
"text": "Congratulations on seeing your situation clearly! That's half the battle. To prevent yourself from going back into debt, you should get rid of any credit cards you have and close the accounts. Just use your debit card. Your post indicates you're not the type to splurge and get stuff just because you want it, so saving for a larger purchase and paying cash for it is probably something you're willing to do. Contrary to popular belief, you can live just fine without a credit card and without a credit score. If you're never going back into debt, you don't need a credit score. Buying a house is possible without one, but is admittedly more work for you and for the underwriters because they can't just ask the FICO god to bless you -- they have to actually see your finances, and you have to actually have some. (I realize many folks will hate this advice, but I am actually living it, and life is pretty good.) If you're in school, look at how much you spend on food while on campus. $5-$10/day for lunch adds up to $100-$200 over a month (M-F, four weeks). Buy groceries and pack a lunch if you can. If your expenses cannot be reduced anymore, you're going to have to get a job. There is nothing wrong with slowing down your studies and working a job to get your income up above your expenses. It stinks being a poor student, but it stinks even more to be a poor student with a mountain of debt. You'll find that working a job doesn't slow you down all that much. Tons of students work their way through school and graduate in plenty of time to get a good job. Good luck to you! You can do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5a7975f7b904e476239cf8f0dc1eb4de",
"text": "\"If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis. It all depends on the numbers you plug in. Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k. Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k. You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc. Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k. It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo. In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it. It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years. That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is: if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value. However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have increased in price. But it may not scale. When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses. That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low. Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either market? I don't think so. I think, in general, buying \"\"more house\"\" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable. Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles. The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes. You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was. In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point: let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc0d3a45e406630a03ba30d9d4eac9d2",
"text": "I am 10 years out of college and been debt free for 4. My school would have cost me $180k for 4 years. I was aware of the cost to go to the school I wanted and so I worked in highschool for every possible scholarship available. I then went into a degree program which I knew was a good investment, engineering. I came out of college in the middle of the recession with you guessed it, around $100k in debt. I moved to a place where the cost of living made it so I could get a job and save. I did not live a lavish lifestyle, I invested my money well, and I worked hard. Garbage in, garbage out. Go to a bad school, not worth it. Do not work hard in college, not worth it. Work hard in a major which has no economic value, not worth it. Do not set yourself up for success by working hard in high school, getting things like AP credits and scholarships, not worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22f8bcf663f42ed5f126b1e447b84980",
"text": "\"There are a lot of things that go into your credit score, but the following steps are core to building it: Now, in your case, you obviously have some flexibility in your monthly budget since you're considering paying down your college loan faster. You have to weigh whether it would be better to pay off the loan that much faster, or just save the money towards buying the car. If you can pile up enough cash to buy the car (and still leave yourself an emergency fund) it would be better to buy the car than add another interest payment. As other answers have noted, you don't want to get in a situation where you have no cash for \"\"unexpected events\"\". Some links of interest:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18dff473c799cb389d55803e69937458",
"text": "It sounds as though you were able to purchase your properties through fortuitous circumstances. Not everyone is going to have spare cash lying around, especially considering [ 71% of US college grads have loan debt, averaging ~$30,000.](http://projectonstudentdebt.org/state_by_state-data.php)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a01424e83595065e20e56380b974ff5",
"text": "\"I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property. This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate. Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting. But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science. Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so). It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them. Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work. With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss). With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment. You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions). Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things. As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point. If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in. So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for. This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future? There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord). If the property is in an \"\"up-and-coming\"\" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund. If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for). Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c153ea4b906a889e5d80fc7a3b0859f",
"text": "Two years ago, I wrote an article titled Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question posed by a fellow blogger. The bottom line is that the loan payment doesn't lower your borrowing power as it fits in the slice between 28% (total housing cost) and 38% (total monthly debt burden) when applying for a loan. But, the $20K is 20% down on $100K worth of house. With median home prices in the US in the mid-high $100Ks, you're halfway there. In the end, it's not about finance, it's a question of how badly you want to buy a house. If I got along with the parents, I'd stay as long as I was welcome, and save every dollar I could. Save for retirement, save for as large a downpayment as you can, and after you buy the house, pay the student loan aggressively. I moved out the week after I graduated.",
"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": "693722f1798694bccfe5812befd2db5d",
"text": "That's exactly why they *should* have tightened faster. A recession now is more likely than it was in 2011-2012 and they can't drop rates of that happens because they never raised them. They're basically buying time before the debt catches up, but they're doing it with more debt so they're treating the immediate symptom and ignoring the long term disease.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd6d21819d04068e9eea9dada5e04ac5",
"text": "The opening price is derived from new information received. It reflects the current state of the market. Opening Price Deviation (from Investopedia): Investor expectation can be changed by corporate announcements or other events that make the news. Corporations typically make news-worthy announcements that may have an effect on the stock price after the market closes. Large-scale natural disasters or man-made disasters such as wars or terrorist attacks that take place in the afterhours may have similar effects on stock prices. When this happens, some investors may attempt to either buy or sell securities during the afterhours. Not all orders are executed during after-hours trading. The lack of liquidity and the resulting wide spreads make market orders unattractive to traders in after-hours trading. This results in a large amount of limit or stop orders being placed at a price that is different from the prior day’s closing price. Consequently, when the market opens the next day, a substantial disparity in supply and demand causes the open to veer away from the prior day’s close in the direction that corresponds to the effect of the announcement, news or event.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e28cfae1dee80565d8184003c0bea0fb
|
Tax on insurance payment due to car deemed as total loss?
|
[
{
"docid": "3ea9ff21dad964566155652df409d774",
"text": "DJClayworth's response is generally correct. You wouldn't have to pay taxes on insurance benefits, since those are in fact bringing you whole to what you've lost. However, in some cases you do need to consider taxes. Specifically, if the insurance payout is higher than your cost basis in the lost property. While you may think that this never happens (why would the insurance company pay more than what it cost you?), it in fact quite frequently does. Specific example would be a car used in your business. If you used your car as part of your business and deducted car depreciation on your tax return - your cost basis was reduced by the depreciation. Getting a full car cost payout form insurance would in fact constitute taxable income to you for the difference between your cost basis (adjusted for the depreciation) and the payout. Another example would be collectibles. Say you bought a car 20 years ago at $5000, you maintained it well during the years (assume you spend another $5000 on repairs), and it is now insured at FMV of $50000. But, alas, it got destroyed by a mountain lion who climbed over the fence and pushed it over a cliff. You got a $50000 payout from your insurance company (because you insured it for full FMV coverage, as a collectible should be insured), of which $40000 will be taxable to you. There may be more specific cases where insurance payouts are (partially) taxable. However, as a general rule, they're not, as long as they're at or below your cost basis level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0ebdacb13bcccddb03a238a8f4e7450",
"text": "\"Generally you do not pay taxes on insurance payouts that occur because of some kind of loss, provided you paid the premiums yourself. \"\"Generally, if you're paying premiums yourself, such as for homeowners insurance and auto insurance, then your insurance benefits are not a taxable event,\"\" says Adam Sherman, CEO of Firstrust Financial Resources in Philadelphia. \"\"Your benefits are reimbursement for expenses, rather than income.\"\" It's not as straightforward for death benefits and life insurance.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4b23ee969f1e4e4d90e43db4458c3090",
"text": "\"The system of comparison and calculation of insurance rates seems completely and utterly flawed to me. Why would you group cars from different manufacturers together by arbitrarily defined factors such as weight and size? It is perfectly possible to have a big, heavy car with very low claims, while a small car can have a lot more claims. The response provided by Tesla seems similarly moronic. They claim that their car is being compared to the wrong types of car, but even if that were the case - *so what*? If the other cars you are being compared to are too cheap/slow/small, then you have obviously been assigned to the wrong group, and should be in another group with the bigger, more expensive cars, which I would gather are even more expensive to insure, and thus your car should be more expensive to insure. If an insurance company is providing insurance to 1000 Volvo XC 90 drivers and 1000 Tesla Model S drivers and they get 100 claims from the Volvo drivers costing them a total of $ 200,000, while they get 150 claims from the Tesla drivers totaling $ 300,000 during the same time period, obviously the Tesla should be 50 % more expensive to insure. That is literally how car insurance works. Here in Germany, every model of car is assigned a unique identifier (\"\"Typschlüsselnummer\"\", roughly translates as \"\"type number\"\" or \"\"type identifier\"\"). Insurance companies track which cars their clients own, and report condensed claims statistics for each model back to a central service provider, which then assigns an insurance group (Typklasse) to each car for each type of insurance (there are distinct, independent groups for liability, partial and comprehensive coverage) depending on the actual, measured per-car expenditures experienced by the insurance companies over the previous year. The insurance companies then feed that data back into their systems for their rate calculations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3c1e20f391057071b3d0a731b556c22",
"text": "You calculate the loss by adding back the interest that was made off the car loan. This is usually mitigated through down payments and longer loan terms (the 7 year auto loan is becoming popular). After a downpayment and a year's worth of payments (which are interest front loaded) I doubt that finance companies would have huge losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cef4b15724a32fdbb940c05a10463e0",
"text": "I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a144d63955b35b8c135bb698e0e8128",
"text": "Regarding auto insurance, you have to look at the different parts. In the United Sates most states do require a level of specific coverage for all drivers. That is to make sure that if you are at fault there is money available to pay the victims. That payment may be for damage to their car or other property, but it also covers medical costs. Many policies also cover you if the other driver doesn't have insurance. The policy that covers the loss of the vehicle is required if you have a loan or are leasing the car. Somebody else owns it while there is a loan, so they can and do require you to pay to protect the vehicle. If there i no loan you don't have to have that portion of a policy. Other parts such as towing, roadside assistance, and rental cars replacement may be required by the insurance standards for your state, or might be almost impossible to drop because all insurance companies include it to stay competitive with their competition. Dropping the non-required parts of the coverage is acceptable when you don't have a loan. Some people do drop it to save money. But that does mean you are self insuring. If you can afford to self insure a new car, great. The interesting thing is that some people have more than enough assets to self inure the non-required part of auto insurance. But then they realize that they do need to up their umbrella liability insurance. This is to protect them from somebody deciding that their resources make them a tempting target when they are involved in a collision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9898784d2a734bcb80dcf5e954f19d2c",
"text": "\"I decline politely. The cost of the insurance policy has two components: The actual cost of a likely repair + profit. If I set aside the cost of a likely repair myself, then I get to keep the profit. If the item doesn't break, I get to keep the \"\"repair\"\" money too :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec14b01f26939b3b715582b7563c1223",
"text": "\"You're asking for opinions here, because it's a matter of how you look at it. I'll give it a shot anyway. For insurance purposes - there's a clear answer: you insure based on how much it would cost you to replace it. For some reason, you're considering as a possibility negotiating with the insurance company about that, but I've never heard of insuring something at a \"\"possible sales value\"\" unless you're talking about a one of a kind thing, or a particularly valuable artifact: art, jewelry, etc. That it would be appraised and insured based on the appraised value. Besides, most of the stuff usually loses value once you bought it, not gains, so insuring per replacement costs makes more sense because it costs more. As to your estimations of your own net worth to yourself - its up to you. I would say that something only worth what people would pay for it. So if you have a car that you just bought brand new, replacing it would cost you $X, but you can only sell it for $X-10%, because it depreciated by at least 10% once you've driven it off the dealer's lot. So I would estimate your worth as $X-10% based on the car, not $X, because although you spent $X on it - you can never recover it if you sell it, so you can't claim to have it as your \"\"net worth\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "270c7b759dc71ee7f3b6988b14f8cf8d",
"text": "It only matters for purposes of the dependent, so if you are clearly at 50%, then you don't need to calculate this cost. If it is close to not being 50%, then you will have to allocate between your sister and mother. To calculate support costs, you can of course include the costs incurred for transportation, per Pub 17 p 34. If you and your sister have an arrangement where she uses the car and in exchange she shoulders extra costs for your mother, then that's legitimately your expense for your mother (as long as this is a true agreement, then it was money she owed you but paid directly to the vendors and creditors that you would have paid). Note that there is a simpler avenue. If your sister agrees that you will claim your mother as dependent, and nobody else provides any substantial support (10%+ of costs), then she can just agree that it's you who will claim her. If you like, such an agreement may be attached to your taxes, possibly using Form 2120. As a general rule, though, you do not need to use 2120 or any other agreement, nor submit any support calculations. If your sister verbally agrees that she hasn't and won't claim your mother, then it's unlikely to cause any problems. Her signed agreement not to claim your mother is merely the most conservative possible documentation strategy, but isn't really necessary. See Pub 17, p 35 on Multiple Support Agreements for more info.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8177505fb3f012694faa2ced7ad40d4d",
"text": "\"There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of \"\"Insurance\"\" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of \"\"insurance\"\", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force. Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned. They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation. IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today.\"",
"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": "547b4e9e1520ac085e0ddc41d12abe56",
"text": "It sounds like something is getting lost in translation here. A business owner should not have to pay personal income tax on business expenses, with the caveat that they are truly business expenses. Here's an example where what you described could happen: Suppose a business has $200K in revenue, and $150K in legitimate business expenses (wages and owner salaries, taxes, services, products/goods, etc.) The profit for this example business is $50K. Depending on how the business is structured (sole proprietor, llc, s-corp, etc), the business owner(s) may have to pay personal income tax on the $50K in profit. If the owner then decided to have the business purchase a new vehicle solely for personal use with, say, $25K of that profit, then the owner may think he could avoid paying income tax on $25K of the $50K. However, this would not be considered a legitimate business expense, and therefore would have to be reclassified as personal income and would be taxed as if the $25K was paid to the owner. If the vehicle truly was used for legitimate business purposes then the business expenses would end up being $175K, with $25K left as profit which is taxable to the owners. Note: this is an oversimplification as it's oftentimes the case that vehicles are partially used for business instead of all or nothing. In fact, large items such as vehicles are typically depreciated so the full purchase price could not be deducted in a single year. If many of the purchases are depreciated items instead of deductions, then this could explain why it appears that the business expenses are being taxed. It's not a tax on the expense, but on the income that hasn't been reduced by expenses, since only a portion of the big ticket item can be treated as an expense in a single year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d258d9865dc769c64e985ecef06366c",
"text": "1: Gambling losses not in excess of gambling winnings can be deducted on Schedule A, line 28. See Pub 17 (p 201). Line 28 catches lots of deductions, and gambling losses are one of them. See Schedule A instructions. 2: If the Mississippi state tax withheld was an income tax (which I assume it was), then it goes on Schedule A, line 5a. In the unlikely event it was not a state or local tax on income, but some sort of excise on gambling, then it may be deductible on line 8 as another deductible tax. It probably is not a personal property tax, which is generally levied against the value of things like cars and other movable property but not on receipts of cash; line 7 probably is not appropriate. The most likely result, without researching Mississippi SALT, is that it was an income tax. See Sched A Instructions for more on the differences between the types of taxes paid. Just to be clear, these statements hold if you are not engaging in poker as a profession. If you are engaging in poker as a business, which can be difficult to establish in the IRS' eyes, then you would use Schedule C and also report business and travel expenses. But the IRS is aware that people want to reduce their gambling income by the cost of hotels and flights to casinos, so it's a relatively high hurdle to be considered a professional poker player.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5453e13b2b0aef8cdb621aee02f79ded",
"text": "\"Convenience, and of course money. In case of an event, you'll have to spend the full worth of money to fix/replace, while if you're insured - you get the insurance to pay for it. It is up to you to decide, if the money saved on the lower premiums worth the risk of paying much more in case of an event. Of course, the cheaper the car the more it makes sense not to pay the premiums. Many people do that. Regarding the bargaining power, I actually think that you would pay less if it is not going through insurance than the bill the insurance pays. I fixed a nasty dent for like $300 at one shop, while at the other they said \"\"It's $1200, but what do you care, your insurance will cover it\"\" (I had $500 deductible, so in the end it was cheaper for me to pay $300 without the insurance at all).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "227e307c1c3960f56285b5867e472f06",
"text": "You lose your agent services. When my wife wrecked our car 3 years ago our agent took care of everything. He got us a rental car, made the arrangements to get it fixed, checked in to see how we were doing, and even helped us set up a second opinion on my wifes wrist surgery. The accident was ruled the fault of the uninsured driver who decided to take off through the red light. But our insurance was the one that covered it all total expenses over 80k. We would have had to eat most of those with out full coverage. Most everything was set up (our rental car, estimates on repair, even her inital consutation with the surgeon) before the investigator had filed her report. Our agents first question was is everyone ok. His second was what can i do to help? He never asked us what happened and was always ahead of our needs in dealing with it. If these things are not important to you, you can probably save quite a bit of money self insuring. But if you are in an accident and unable to do them yourself, do you have someone to do it for you? Do you trust them to handle your business and are you willing to saddle them with the responsibility of dealing with it? To me insurance is less about me and more about my family. It was nice that my agent did all of that for me. I would have been willing to do it myself though. But I am glad to know he is there for my wife if something happens to me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f76cea190e9d075e752dcfec76b4b1ed",
"text": "It depends on if it is a non-refundable deposit, retainer, etc. The remaining $1,500 is not included in that quarter's sales, because you have not yet received it and it is not guaranteed. The question is really if you should count the $500 toward the quarter where it is received, or during the quarter where you invoice. This deposit might be categorized as a liability until you invoice, and there is no sales tax to be calculated until the invoice for the total. I say 'might' because this can vary by state and the type of transaction or business. For example, if someone makes a cash down payment on a lease for a car, some states will require that sales tax be charged on this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8e8504980df3d08aed3ef297c10e963",
"text": "You will be liable to pay the tax For the 2017 year of assessment (1 March 2016 - 28 February 2017) if you earned less than R75 000 you will not have to pay any tax The annual budget speach is this week and the new tax rates will be released but most likely that R75 000 will increase to R78 000+- so if you earn less than that tax would not even be applicable on you, Should you earn in a tax year more than R75 000 then would be able to do your own tax return and payments via E-Filling on SARS's website : http://www.sarsefiling.co.za/ But if you earn less than R350 000 then you don't have to submit a tax return, but there is nothing that stops you from submitting one if you feel that you want to. You can use https://www.taxtim.com/za/ to help you with other questions you might have. You can potentially bring down your tax-able income by showing a loss in capital value of your equipment that you purchased that is now worth less than it was when you initially purchased it, but these are all things you should discuss with a tax practitioner, I am not entirely sure how you will show a loss in capital value as a sole-proprietor, that is what you will be since you are not a company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
62d88b4d5f25e7f831d8b988b9c36312
|
Monthly money transfers from US to Puerto Rico
|
[
{
"docid": "18397334430909aee08a750b1b380c31",
"text": "Puerto Rico: Last I checked, the Puerto Rico banking system wasn't materially different than working within the US - though some Continental US banks exclude US Territories like Guam and Puerto Rico or charge more when dealing with them. I'm not certain as to why. However, most banks don't see them any differently than a regular US bank. Regarding Wire Transfers (WT): $35 for an ad-hoc WT within the US and Puerto Rico is for the most part average. Wires cost money for the convenience of quick clearing and guaranteed funds. If you have a business/commercial account where you are doing this regularly and paying a monthly fee for a WT service, $10 - $15 each may be expected. I had a business account with US Bank where I paid $15 a month for a WT transfer service and reoccurring template (always went to the same account - AMEX in this case) and the transfers were only $15 each. But, a WT as a general rule, especially when it's only a once a month thing from a personal account, will cost around $25 - $35 in the US and Puerto Rico. As others have said, you can simply mail a personal check just as you would in the US. Many people choose to use Money Orders for Puerto Rico as they can be cashed at the post office (I believe there is an amount limit though). ACH: If you want even easier, I would use ACH. Banks in Puerto Rico use this ACH (Automatic Clearing House) system as we do in the Continental US. It will take a little longer than WT, but as you said - this is fine. Not all US Banks offer free ACH, but a number of them do. Last I checked, Citibank and USAA where among them. Banks like, BAC charges a small fee. Much smaller than a WT! This post may be useful to you: What's the difference between wire transfer and ACH?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6bc9f64574af2062c1c3525e86aac0e1",
"text": "Typically your statement will break down each of the balances that carry a different rate, so you'll see them lumped into the 0% line, or two separates lines with different rates for each. If you don't see it on the statement, a quick call to your bank should clarify it for you. If I had to guess, I would lean towards the fee likely being at 0% also, but if it isn't, typically you would pay the minimum + $350 on your next statement. (Because only amounts over the minimum go towards principal of the highest rates first, at least this is true in the US for personal accounts.) Of course this is something your bank should be able to clarify as well. Balance Transfer Tip: I always recommend setting up automatic payments when you take advantage of a balance transfer offer. The reason is, oftentimes buried deeply in the terms and conditions, is an evil phrase which says that if you miss a payment, they have the right to revoke the promotional rate and start charging you a higher rate. That would be bad enough if it happened, but to make things worse I believe the fee you paid for the transfer is not returned to you. So, set up an auto payment each month for at least the minimum payment. And if you can afford it, divide the total transferred by the number of months and pay that amount each month. (Assuming you don't pay interest on the fee: $17,500 * 1.02 / 18 = $991.67/per month.) That way you'll have it paid off just in time to not have any higher interest when the promotional rate expires. If you don't know if you can afford the higher amount each month, set it to the max you know for sure you can afford, and make additional payments whenever you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af",
"text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88c461ef9c397b80086de1ac45b49a68",
"text": "I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but in general its pretty simple: She goes to the UK bank and requests a wire transfer, providing your details as a recipient. You then go to your bank, fill the necessary forms for the money-laundaring regulations, you probably also need to pay the taxes on the money to the IRS, and then you have it. If you have 1 million dollars (or is it pounds?), I'm sure you can afford spending several hundreds for a tax attorney to make sure your liabilities are reduced to minimum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45b38491d157c18dffa4205923def3d9",
"text": "I may be moving to Switzerland soon and would like to know if there's a similar system to move money between a Swiss bank account and a U.S bank account. There is no easy way. The most common method is International Wire or SWIFT. These kinds of transfer are generally charged in the range of USD 20 to USD 50 per transfer. It generally takes 2 to 5 days to move the money. Some Banks have not yet given the facility to initiate a International Wire from Internet banking platforms. One has to physically walk-in. So if this is going to be frequent, make sure both your banks offer this. As the volume between US and Switzerland is less, there may not be any dedicated remittance service providers [these are generally low cost].",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc60c2be7f14a3235c87dbae4b1b69fd",
"text": "Transferwise gives an excellent exchange rate and very minimal costs. They save on costs by not actually changing any money; your money goes to someone else in the US, and the Canadia dollars you want come from someone else in Canada. No money changes currency or crosses borders, there is no bank transfer fee (assuming that domestic bank transfers, inside the country, are free), and they give an excellent exchange rate (very nearly the spot rate, I find; far better than many rates I find online for sending money across the border). I sent money from the UK to Japan with it last week, at a fixed fee of about three US dollars (I was charged in GBP, obviously). About one tenth the cost of an international bank transfer. I just double-checked; at about midday on the fifth of October 2016, they gave me a rate of 130.15 JPY per 1 GBP, and then charged me two GBP to transfer the money. The rate that day, according to xe.com, varied between 130.7 and 132 ; basically, I don't think I could have got a better deal pretty much anywhere. As I type, this very second, they offer 1.33 CAD for 1 USD , and google tells me that this very second, the exchange rate is 1.33 CAD for 1 USD - transferwise is giving the spot price. I don't think you'll get a better rate anywhere else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7851f4eb8431440619c6ffb3774188f0",
"text": "\"As soon as I see the word \"\"friends\"\" along with money transfer I think scam. But ignoring that red flag.... You will have American companies reporting to the IRS that you are a Canadian Vendor they have hired. Then you are transferring money to people in Bangladesh. Assuming also that you fill out all the regulatory paperwork to establish this Money transfer business you may still face annual reporting requirements to 3 national taxing authorities. In the United states there are situations where the US Government hires a large company to complete a project. As part of that contract they require the large company to hire small businesses to complete some of the tasks. In a situation where the large company is imply serving as a conduit for the money between the government and the sub-contractor; and the large company has no other responsibilities; the usual fee for providing that function is 8% of the funds. This pays for their expenses for their accounting functions plus profit and the taxes that will trigger. Yet you said \"\"At the end of the day, I will not earn much, but the transactions will just burden my tax returns.\"\" The 8 percent fee doesn't include doesn't include having to file paperwork with 3 nations. Adding this to all the other risks associated with being an international bank, plus the legal costs of making sure you are following all the regulations...No thanks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95027669f9c35e4703223ae15a60e31e",
"text": "A quick search shows that https://www.westernunion.com/de/en/send-money/start.html says they will transfer €5,000 for a cost of €2.90. Assuming you can do a transfer every week, that would be six weeks at a cost of €17.40. €17.40 is slightly less than €1,500.00. I'm sure there are more ways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d87e11efcd1821a28428fdb83e5d531",
"text": "Most US banks allow to initiate wire transfers online. (I do it regularly with BoA and JPMorgan-Chase) Once you have your account details in Germany, you log on to your US account, set it up, and initiate the transfer; that should go through within one day. The exchange ratio is better than anything you would get buying/selling currency (paper cash money), no matter where you do it. Chase takes a fee of 40$ per online transaction; BoA 45$. The receiving bank might or might not take additional fees, they should be lower though (I have experienced between 0€ and 0.35%). Therefore, it is a good idea to bundle your transfers into one, if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08248f5214e8b3782b0d58a4351d7af1",
"text": "He cannot get money from someone else account. Your US resident friend in New York can send money to your Indian friend in Atlanta via Western Union which has presence in almost every corner of the US. Most definitely in the city of Atlanta. Your Indian friend can receive the Western Union transfer, in cash, within minutes after the friend in New York sends it. Here's the site for location search. The sender doesn't need to go anywhere, can send online, so your New York friend doesn't even need to waste much time. In fact - you don't need to bother your friend in New York, you can send it online yourself (assuming you're American/have US bank account). In order to receive the money, your Indian friend will obviously need a proper identification (i.e.: passport).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f",
"text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1105d0dfbec07b6b30ea37e35393157",
"text": "HSBC exchange spread between HKD and USD was 483 bps (1 bps is 0.0001) on their 24 hours exchange network a few weeks ago when I checked. It is very high for a pair of linked currencies which has very little fluctuation. One should expect less than 5 bps or even 1 bps. I did my currency conversion at a US brokerage which can take HKD currency and then I was able to pick the time/rate and amount I like to make the conversion. Basically, the currency pair runs within a tight band and you just need to buy USD with HKD at the time when it is near the edge of the band to your advantage. There is usually no fee on currency conversion. They make money through the spread. HSBC premier allows you to wire free among countries. I forget whether they offer tighter spread or not. Rob was right on about the cost of transferring money overseas. The majority of the cost is in the conversion, not the wiring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c295f6219f707bffbc845d07fe07b2d1",
"text": "I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec9bbffb3de74756544e9883b0955746",
"text": "Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c9acdcbf56c5fe87270584861c27edb",
"text": "After collecting information via web searching, the comments above, and a additional call to BOA, i have concluded the following to the best of my knowledge. Zelle Transfers are final. Irreversible. As Jay mentioned above, funds are subtracted from the sending account before the transfer is made, therefore it eliminates sending funds that do not exist. I validated this information with BOA, and the BOA representative said that once a zelle transfer is initiated and the receiving party has received the funds, it can no longer be canceled. Funds received by the receiving party is credited immediately. I will note that the BOA representative was a BOA representative and not a Zelle representative. I say this because the representatives seemed to be slightly weary in answering my questions about Zelle, as if he was looking up the information as we spoke. If someone is reading this and plans to transfer huge amount of cash from a highly likely malicious user, i would recommend contacting Zelle or your personal bank directly to further validate this information. Zelle, from what i can find, is a fairly new technology. I could not find a Zelle contact number via the web for questioning, so i can only rely on the knowledge on my BOA representative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "536ea8d6b0e4f7dd151fac547fee08e0",
"text": "TL;DR for those who don't want to waste their time: Uber didn't do anything special. Also, you should follow unethical laws and not try to change or challenge the system. While I was reading the piece I thought it was the work of a sophomore, but it turns out this was written by a professor.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e82611645a5b807e1f00e4804349aa54
|
Why do people buy insurance even if they have the means to overcome the loss?
|
[
{
"docid": "c5e7a3c91496ce03aa1164a95e9039fc",
"text": "There are a couple of reasons that a person might choose to use insurance even if they could handle the financial loss if something went wrong. They know their risk better than the insurance company. While it might seem odd at first glance that an individual can be better at assessing risk than a large company with thousands of actuaries. There are limits to the amount of knowledge that an insurance company can have or use to price their insurance products. For instance if you were a very aggressive driver but didn't have any recent tickets or accidents because you were in college and didn't have a car on a regular basis, but now you have a job and drive 30 miles to work every day. You know your risk is relatively high but the insurance company sees you as relatively low risk and aren't able to price that extra risk into your premium. Just because a person can survive financial after losing something like a car or a house doesn't mean it isn't desirable to pay a small price to mitigate that risk. If you are using your savings to pay for an emergency then that money needs to be semi liquid in case you need it limiting your investment options. Where as if you purchase insurance you pay a small amount of money to be able to invest the rest of your money. Liquidity is a big deal particularly if you are a small business and investing into your business where your money can make your more money but you may or may not be able to access that money very easily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0559c1e632f653f0a26df0e3ab9f4c5e",
"text": "\"For a car, you're typically compelled to carry insurance, and picking up \"\"comprehensive\"\" coverage (fire, theft, act of god) is normally cheap. If the car was purchased with a loan, the lender will stipulate that you carry comprehensive and collision insurance. People buy insurance because it limits their liability. In the grand scheme of things, pricing in a fixed rate of loss every year (insurance premium + potential deductible) is appealing to many versus having to cover a catastrophic loss when your car is wrecked or stolen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d047c32af2e68df91707cccae2fdf08",
"text": "Your basic point is correct; the savvy move is to use insurance only to cover losses that would be painful or catastrophic for you. Otherwise, self-insure. In the specific example of car insurance, you may be missing that it doesn't only cover replacement of the car, it also covers liability, which is a hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars risk. The liability coverage may well be legally required; it may also be required as a base layer if you want to get a separate umbrella policy up to millions in liability. So you have to be very rich before this insurance stops making sense. In the US at least you can certainly buy car insurance that doesn't cover loss of the car, or that has a high deductible. And in fact, if you can afford to self-insure up to a high deductible, on average as you say that should be a good idea. Same is true of most kinds of insurance, a high deductible is best as long as you can afford it, unless you know you'll probably file a claim. (Health insurance in particular is weird in many ways, and one is that you often can estimate whether you'll have claims.) On our auto policy, the liability and uninsured motorist coverage is about 60% of the cost while damage to the car coverage is 40%. I'm sure this varies a lot depending on the value of your cars and how much you drive and driving record, etc. On an aging car the coverage for the car itself should get cheaper and cheaper since the car is worth less, while liability coverage would not necessarily get cheaper.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9f4ef1abee813f390cd3e929b76af95",
"text": "\"All investors have ultimately the same investment goal: maximize returns while limiting risk to an acceptable level. Of course we would love to maximize returns while minimizing risk, but in most cases if you want higher returns you must be willing to accept higher levels of risk. We must keep in mind that investors are humans, not computers. As such not everybody is willing to accept the same level of risk. Insurance is simply a way to \"\"buy down\"\" risk. Yes, it reduces our overall gains (most of the time), but so do bonds vs stocks (most of the time). And yet who among us doesn't have bonds in our portfolio? Insurance is yet another way to balance risk and return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d2c32bdc72dc63989dd12ffe277ec6f",
"text": "Insurance isn't a product designed to protect against financial loss. The product is designed to allow people to pay a small fee (the premium) for peace of mind. This allows the insured to feel as if their purchase was worthy (they see the potential of loss as a concern and the premiums small enough to allow them to not worry about having a loss). Insurance companies will then seek out insurable risks where the perceived losses far out weight the actual losses (risk assessment). So, you answer is that your friends are paying for peace of mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f60dae4742b7b4fd2c06b84dc792b557",
"text": "Insurance is a funny product. As you said, it is a little like gambling. When I buy term life insurance, I'm essentially betting that I'm going to die within the next 20 years, and the insurance company is betting that I'm not. I'm hoping to lose that bet! Besides all of the reasons that other answers mentioned, I think part of the reason is psychological. As in my example, I'm setting up a kind of a win-win situation for myself here. Let's go with car insurance, a less-morbid example than my first example. If I don't get into a car accident, great! If I do get into a car accident, then the traumatic event is at least offset by the fact that the financial impact to me is minimal. Win-win.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "310791d9ac43bf6dfa29b6a6bbfa79aa",
"text": "Ignoring that liability car insurance is usually a state mandated requirement and that all banks require full coverage, there are quite a few reasons to buy it. No matter how much money you have, you can't really guarantee that you can recover financially from an accident. Yes, you can buy a new car. But what happens if you are sued because the other driver died or is now in a long term coma? The legal costs alone would financially bury most people. It's even worse if you are rich. Let's say someone rear ended you. If you had no insurance (again ignoring the legality here), you can bet their attorney would take a look at your considerable financial assets and do whatever it took to get as much of that as possible. The legal fees alone of defending yourself at trial would likely far outstrip everything else. And that's just one little situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cece7085b75d2a0b1af793420237c36a",
"text": "In addition to stoj's two good points I'll add a couple more reasons: 3) In some situations there are secondary factors involved that can make it a good deal. These normally amount to cases where you can buy the insurance with pre-tax dollars but would have to pay the bills with post-tax dollars. 4) Insurance companies know much better what things should cost and often have negotiated rates. A rich person would generally be well-served to have health insurance for this very reason.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ca1a00a58d46726efd352f668f67a73",
"text": "\"You're making the assumption that a person would be aware, in advance, that they'd have enough resources to pay the costs of anything that might happen. Second, you're assuming the cost of insurance would outweigh what the person would have to pay out of pocket if they didn't have insurance. In other words as an example, if the insurance premiums on my car are so high that it would be cheaper for me to replace it myself in cash then it might make sense, but how likely is that to be the case? There's a gambling adage that I think applies here - \"\"Always bet with the house's money\"\". Why would I put my own money on the line in the event of some event rather than pay for an insurance policy that takes care of it for me? That way, my costs are predictable and manageable - I pay the premiums and perhaps a deductible, and that's it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3d2c4612e9c333baba7cd0129c3fa46",
"text": "This person could buy another car at any moment without any money problems, so I don't really see any point in insuring, especially with such a ridiculously high price compared to the extremely low risk. Convenience. If you self-insure, then an accident means that you have to make arrangements to get the car towed, fixed, evaluated, etc. If you buy insurance, your insurer would prefer to do all that. They argue with the mechanic over prices, the lawyer over liability, etc. And of course, rich people need more liability insurance than other people, not less. So part of that $1400 is probably money that your friend would have to pay regardless.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e48a26da3c0a0c63bdae93575ef5466c",
"text": "You only need umbrella policy for large amounts of liability protection (I think they usually start with $1M). So if you don't have and don't expect to have assets at such a high value - why would you need the insurance? Your homeowners/renters/car/travel insurance should be enough, and you still need to have those for umbrella since its on top of the existing coverage, not instead. Many people just don't have enough assets to justify such a high coverage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dd8641f0761fc8c05b8578d0a237cb8",
"text": "You could slip and fall in the shower tonight. Or you might never need it. Insurance is a hedge against risk. If the event has already occurred, you're uninsurable. If you and others would suffer if you have a bad accident and can't work, get it now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b3fafaa967083f6341aed5116b52e70",
"text": "There is not necessarily a need to prevent what you describe - 'turning insurance on before high risk situations'. They just need to calculate the premiums accordingly. For example, if an insurance needs to take 50$/year for insuring your house against flood, and a flood happens in average every 10 years, if you just insure the two weeks in the ten years where heavy rain is predicted, you might pay 500$ for the two weeks. The total is the same for the insurance - they get 500$, and you get insurance for the dangerous period. In the contrary; if a flooding (unexpectedly) happens outside your two weeks, they are out. From the home owners view, 500$ for two weeks when heavy rains and floods are expected, and nothing otherwise sounds pretty good, compared to 50$ every year. It is the same of course, but psychology works that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8c18e08c9bce38d5731ba6c59f07bc",
"text": "\"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \"\"protect\"\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \"\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\"\" But quite a few have also said, \"\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\"\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e986d00b1b65c89f70aea126b6dfa7a3",
"text": "\"You are kind of thinking of this correctly, but you will and should pay for insurance at some point. What I mean by that is that, although the insurance company is making a profit, that removing the risk for certain incidents from your life, you are still receiving a lot of value. Things that inflict large losses in your life tend to be good insurance buys. Health, liability, long term care, long term disability and property insurance typically fall into this category. In your case, assuming you are young and healthy, it would be a poor choice to drop the major medical health insurance. There is a small chance you will get very sick in the next 10 years or so and require the use of this insurance. A much smaller chance than what is represented by the premium. But if you do get very sick, and don't have insurance, it will probably wipe you out financially. The devastation could last the rest of your life. You are paying to mitigate that possibility. And as you said, it's pretty low cost. While you seem to be really good at numbers it is hard to quantify the risk avoidance. But it must be considered in your analysis. Also along those lines is car insurance. While you may not be willing to pay for \"\"full coverage\"\" it's a great idea to max out your personal liability if you have sufficient assets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c9e00ce04a383d57acbd2b60aa935eb",
"text": "Do you have a clue of what would of happened to you if you had some serious condition and at some point you lost your job? Insurers would deny you insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and you would be left out to dry. Now maybe you aren't as unfortunate as having a serious health condition, but no new bill will make everything better for everyone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e5c075808444b3079a84d19def23ea",
"text": "\"There is an economic, a social and a psychological side to the decision whether to buy insurance or not, and if yes, which one. Economically, as you say already in your question, an insurance is on average a net loss for the insured. The key word here is \"\"average\"\". If you know that there are many cancer cases in your family buy health insurance by all means; it's a sound investment. If you are a reckless driver make sure you have extensive coverage on your liability insurance. But absent such extra risks: Independently of somebody's wealth insurance should be limited to covering catastrophic events. What is often overlooked is that the insurance by all means should really cover those catastrophic events. For example the car liability minimums in many states are not sufficient. The typical upper middle class person could probably pay the 15k/30k/10k required in Arizona with a loan on their house; but a really catastrophic accident is simply not covered and would totally ruin that person and their family. Insuring petty damage is a common mistake: economically speaking, all insurances should have deductibles which are as high as one could afford to pay without feeling too much pain. That \"\"pain\"\" qualification has an economical and a social aspect. Of course any risk which materialized is an economical damage of some kind; perhaps now I can't buy the PS4, or the diamond ring, or the car, or the house, or the island which had caught my eye. I could probably do all these things, just perhaps without some extras, even if I had paid for insurance; so if I don't want to live with the risk to lose that possibility I better buy insurance. Another economical aspect is that the money may not be available without selling assets, possibly on short notice and hence not for the best price. Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that). The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured. Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5bf96d7c983c8dce32b8a34bba14280",
"text": "\"There are 2 maxims that help make sense of insurance: Following those 2 rules, \"\"normal\"\" insurance makes sense. Can't afford to replace your car? insure it. Can afford to lose your TV? Don't insure it. People with a net worth in the low millions have very similar insurance needs to the middle class. For example, they might be able to afford a new car when they total it, but they probably can't afford to pay for the long term care of the person they accidentally ran over. Similarly, they probably need to insure their million dollar house, just like average people insure more affordable housing. \"\"Very wealthy\"\" people still have the same basic choices, but for different assets. If you are a billionaire, then you might not bother to insure your $30k childhood home or your fleet vehicles, but you probably would insure your $250m mansion, your $100m yacht and your more pricey collectible cars. It's also worth noting that \"\"very wealthy\"\" people are at much higher risk of being sued for negligence or personal injury. As such, they are more likely to purchase personal liability or umbrella insurance coverage to protect against such risks. Multi-million-dollar personal injury suits would never be filed against a poorer person simply because they couldn't afford to pay even the plaintiff's lawyer fees when they lost the court case. Insurance also makes sense when the insurance company is likely to (grossly) underestimate the risk they are taking. For example, if I am a really bad driver, but i have a clean record thanks to my army of lawyers, then insurance might actually be a good deal for me even on average. To take the \"\"very wealthy\"\" stereotypes to the extreme, perhaps my eccentric billionaire neighbor and I are in an escalating feud which I think will result in my butler \"\"accidentally\"\" running his car into my neighbor's precious 1961 Ferrari.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ef404d9575a94a56820d4f80a9f2864",
"text": "\"Because people are Risk Averse. Suppose that you own an asset worth $10,000 to you. Suppose that each year, the asset has 1% chance of being stolen (or completely broken). The expected value is 99% x 10,000 + 1% x $0 = $9,900. This is the average outcome if you do not buy insurance. Now consider two mutually exclusive outcomes: 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900) 100% chance of keeping $9,900 (expected value: $9,900) Everyone would choose option 2, even though the expected values are the same. Option 2 is an insurance that cost $100 (Actuarially fair, aka the odds are fair). Now suppose the insurance costs $150 instead of $100 (despite that the bad probability is still 1%). You are faced with 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900) 100% chance of keeping $9,850 (expected value: $9,850) Some people would still choose option 2, even though the expected value is actually lower. The $50 is called Risk Premium, which people are willing to pay in order to avoid uncertainty. The odds are unfair, but the Risk Premium has its value. That being said, competition between insurance companies would drive down the premium until the insurance is close to actuarially fair, but they have cost to cover (sales, administration, etc), making the odds \"\"unfair\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1913ec64a4d2a98e9c9970f4e2773f84",
"text": "Most people buy insurance because it is legally required to own a car or to have a mortgage. People want to own homes and to have personal transportation enough that they are willing to pay for required insurance costs. There are a lot of great explanations here as to why insurance is important and I don't want to detract from those at all. However, if we're being honest, most people are not sophisticated enough to measure and hedge their various financial risks. They just want to own an home and to drive a car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96c320793de662b8549c60cee3880fe7",
"text": "Simply put, it makes sense from the moment you can afford the loss without negative consequences. For example, if your car costs $20000 and you happen to have another $20000 laying around, you can choose not to insure your car against damage. In the worst case, you can simply buy a new one. However, not insuring your car has a hidden cost: you can't long-term invest that money anymore. If your insurance costs $500 a year, and you can invest those $20000 with a return on investment of more than 2.5%, it still makes sense to invest that money while having your car insured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa80e2066fab165e86db3de8af6d86ac",
"text": "Does such insurance make any sense or is it just wasting money for passengers? As with most insurance, it depends. If you just look at the probability of a payout, the cost of the insurance, and the payout amount, then statistically it will always be better to avoid buying insurance. This is because there is a certain amount of overhead in an insurance company, like the commissions and salaries you mentioned. The goal when buying insurance should be to avoid a cost that you cannot afford or is inconvenient to be able to afford. For example, if your family would be devastated financially by your death then it would make sense for you to buy some sort of life insurance. Whether or not this particular insurance makes sense for you depends on your financial situation and risk tolerance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8177505fb3f012694faa2ced7ad40d4d",
"text": "\"There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of \"\"Insurance\"\" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of \"\"insurance\"\", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force. Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned. They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation. IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20b60c94ce607e27ad139ace6b216c42",
"text": "\"The definition of insurance is the transfer of risk. Thus, you're paying for transferring of a risk (of an item/property) to the insurer (carrier), so that they bear the financial burden of a loss/accident and not you. You could always self-insure, but a lot of times, insurance is cheaper, since due to the \"\"Law of Large Numbers\"\" the insurer can just charge a premium that is small percentage in comparison to the cost of self-insuring.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be2cae6c13606d7d4653c326d5ad553d",
"text": "If you can not support yourself should your father die, an insurance policy may make sense as a safety net. As an investment, it is a bad bet unless he knows something about his health that would somehow not cause his premiums to be increased tremendously yet not cause them to claim he was attempting to defraud them and refuse payment. In other words, it is a bad bet, period. Insurance is a tool. If the tool doesn't do something you specifically need, it's the wrong tool.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8f1eab144d8f21ac7fed7acffb691048
|
How does 1099 work with my own company
|
[
{
"docid": "113ceb5d9dd121482e9d9a44002a48f2",
"text": "Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "908841e826e30f96712c7bdec6a1b499",
"text": "\"Being self-employed, your \"\"profit\"\" is calculated as all the bills you send out, minus all business-related cost that you have (you will need a receipt for everything, and there are different rules for things that last for long time, long tools, machinery). You can file your taxes yourself - the HRS website will tell you how to, and you can do it online. It's close to the same as your normal online tax return. Only thing is that you must keep receipts for all the cost that you claim. Your tax: Assuming your gross salary is £25,000 and your profits are about £10,000, you will be paying 8% for national insurance, and 20% income tax. If you go above £43,000 or thereabouts, you pay 40% income tax on any income above that threshold, instead of 20%, but your national insurance payments stop.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e732da138b264cabdd06ac9aed37229b",
"text": "The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64ff7d85368c789defd8b35ea3d24c03",
"text": "\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb4538721131cc3f19655a02ffa66286",
"text": "\"If you start an LLC with you as the sole member it will be considered a disregarded entity. This basically means that you have the protection of being a company, but all your revenues will go on your personal tax return and be taxed at whatever rate your personal rate calculates to based on your situation. Now here is the good stuff. If you file Form 2553 you can change your sole member LLC to file as an S Corp. Once you have done this it changes the game on how you can pay out what your company makes. You will need to employ yourself and give a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary. This will be reported to the IRS and you will file your normal tax returns and they will be taxed based on your situation. Now as the sole member you can then pay yourself \"\"distribution to share holders\"\" from your account and this money is not subject to normal fica and social security tax (check with your tax guy) and MAKE SURE to document correctly. The other thing is that on that same form you can elect to have a different fiscal year than the standard calendar IRS tax year. This means that you could then take part of profits in one tax year and part in another so that you don't bump yourself into another tax bracket. Example: You cut a deal and the company makes 100,000 in profit that you want to take as a distribution. If you wrote yourself a check for all of it then it could put you into another tax bracket. If your fiscal year were to end say on sept 30 and you cut the deal before that date then you could write say 50,000 this year and then on jan 1 write the other check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bacdfd536e8d1bafca2bc17e11a56bb0",
"text": "I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d230b97c82f552fa6433e8f60ecfd99",
"text": "You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83582d9e279622316731ac9011bd023d",
"text": "The way deductions work normally does not take into account what account the transaction was made using. I.e. you report your gross income, your deductions and they subtract the deductions from the income. What's left is your taxable income. The tricky part comes with pre-tax contributions to tax advantaged accounts (like 401(k)). Those plans require the contributions to be made by your company. Since contributions to 529 plans are not deductible on your federal income taxes, the money is not going to be directly deposited. So it does not matter how the money goes into the plan. Just make sure you keep a record of your contributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfbfc478fa486de7f3c15b3583b3666a",
"text": "It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9e5ea4e617dfb57896f673e055ff335",
"text": "Just earning the money would trigger a 1099 (assuming other requirements are met). It doesn't matter where the money is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a9011e433785e61732b017579a786a1",
"text": "Yes, but make sure you issue a 1099 to these freelancers by 1/31/2016 or you may forfeit your ability to claim the expenses. You will probably need to collect a W-9 from each freelancer but also check with oDesk as they may have the necessary paperwork already in place for this exact reason. Most importantly, consult with a trusted CPA to ensure you are completing all necessary forms correctly and following current IRS rules and regulations. PS - I do this myself for my own business and it's quite simple and straight forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16cd7199c139d9f9e3025c20c4cacd73",
"text": "You can ask the client to pay you through the LLC. In that case you should invoice them from the LLC and have them pay the invoice. If they pay you personally, you can always make a capital contribution to the LLC and use that money to buy equipment. The tax implications for a single person LLC providing professional services are the same for you either way: income is income whether it's from your LLC or an employer. It's different for the employer if they are giving you a W2 vs a 1099. So it doesn't matter much for you. If the LLC is buying equipment, make sure you get enough revenue through the LLC to at least offset those expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1406ad7d12bc3a17399d0be238045b5b",
"text": "I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28a548b853776d6e465185cd77a0edb2",
"text": "I'm not sure 1099-MISC is what you should expect. Equity means ownership, and in LLC context it means membership. As an LLC member, you'll get distributions and should receive a K-1 form for tax treatment, not 1099 or W2. If the CEO is talking about 1099 it means he's going to hire you as a contractor which contradicts the statement about equity allocation. That's an entirely different situation. 1) Specifically, would the 1099-MISC form be used in this case? 1099-MISC is used to describe various payments. Depending on which box is filled, the tax treatment may be as of employment income (subject to SE taxes) or passive income (royalties, rents, etc - subject to various limitations in the tax code). 3) If this is the only logical method of compensation (receiving a % of real estate sales), how would it be taxed? That would probably be a commission and taxed as employment income. I suggest to get a professional tax adviser consultation on this issue, with specific details, numbers, and kinds of deals involved. You can get gain or lose a lot of money just because you're characterized as a contractor and not LLC member or employee (each has its own benefits and disadvantages, and you have to consider them all). 4) Are there any advantages/disadvantages to acquiring and selling properties through the company as opposed to receiving a % of sales? Yes. There are advantages and there are disadvantages. For example, if you're using a corporation, you can get salary, if you're a contractor you cannot. There are a lot of issues hidden in this distinction (which I've just discussed with KeithS in this argument).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "521ca52299c5af07b7cf3157b6a45764",
"text": "\"TL;DR: Get a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for tax issues, and a lawyer for the Operating Agreement, labor law and contract related issues. Some things are not suitable for DIY unless you know exactly what you're doing. We both do freelance work currently just through our personal names. What kind of taxes are we looking into paying into the business (besides setup of everything) compared to being a self proprietor? (I'm seeing that the general answer is no, as long as income is <200k, but not certain). Unless you decide to have your LLC taxed as a corporation, there's no change in taxes. LLC, by default, is a pass-through entity and all income will flow to your respective tax returns. From tax perspective, the LLC will be treated as a partnership. It will file form 1065 to report its income, and allocate the income to the members/partners on schedules K-1 which will be given to you. You'll use the numbers on the K-1 to transfer income allocated to you to your tax returns and pay taxes on that. Being out of state, will she incur more taxes from the money being now filtered through the business? Your employee couldn't care less about your tax problems. She will continue receiving the same salary whether you are a sole proprietor or a LLC, or Corporatoin. What kind of forms are we looking into needing/providing when switching to a LLC from freelance work? Normally we just get 1099's, what would that be now? Your contract counterparts couldn't care less about your tax problems. Unless you are a corporation, people who pay you more than $600 a year must file a 1099. Since you'll be a partnership, you'll need to provide the partnership EIN instead of your own SSN, but that's the only difference. Are LLC's required to pay taxes 4 times per year? We would definitely get an accountant for things, but being as this is side work, there will be times where we choose to not take on clients, which could cause multiple months of no income. Obviously we would save for when we need to pay taxes, but is there a magic number that says \"\"you must now pay four times per year\"\". Unless you choose to tax your LLC as a corporation, LLC will pay no taxes. You will need to make sure you have enough withholding to cover for the additional income, or pay the quarterly estimates. The magic number is $1000. If your withholding+estimates is $1000 less than what your tax liability is, you'll be penalized, unless the total withholding+estimates is more than 100% of your prior year tax liability (or 110%, depending on the amounts). The LLC would be 50% 50%, but that work would not always be that. We will be taking on smaller project through the company, so there will be times where one of us could potentially be making more money. Are we setting ourselves up for disaster if one is payed more than the other while still having equal ownership? Partnerships can be very flexible, and equity split doesn't have to be the same as income, loss or assets split. But, you'll need to have a lawyer draft your operational agreement which will define all these splits and who gets how much in what case. Make sure to cover as much as possible in that agreement in order to avoid problems later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bfc394f5b81ac7a46127529cd791709",
"text": "From the 1099 instructions: File Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for each person to whom you have paid during the year Your accounting method doesn't matter. You file 1099 for the year you paid the money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d17b2741ea126c401757c9f2cda6a586
|
Safe and cheap way to send money from Canada to South America
|
[
{
"docid": "cd8e2442cc976c93958606e280d1aa37",
"text": "\"The catch with any exchange service is that you're going to involve some sort of business and they're going to want to get paid for their service. These services all come with their own exchange rates, fees, waiting periods, or requirements to even use said service. Commonly, pros towards one of those comes at the cost of another— e.g. fast transfers have higher fees or worse exchange rates. Over the past few months I needed a service and ended up using USForex. Since you're going from CAD to USD, you'd likely need to use CanadianForex. Pros: Cons: Overall, this option was far better than the $97.00 I was quoted from WesternUnion; or the $25.00-45.00 I was quoted from BMO Harris, which would have required I open a saving account with them. I wasn't provided a clean exchange rate between these two to know how all three compared. The only bit of advice I can say with any service is compare exchange rates. If you're transferring more than a few hundred dollars, the exchange rate can be seen as a \"\"hidden\"\" fee when it's unreasonably low. I'm not affiliated with or accommodated by any of the exchange services mentioned.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6b3106db1d97e80a5130ab69402ab6bd",
"text": "There are many options to send money internationally. You can send it through PayPal (assuming that both you and your friend have a PayPal account). You can also send it through money services such as Western Union (assuming you can both get to a WU location). Or, you can use popular apps such as Venmo for sending money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "457d622371d738723f400eaa2f67c280",
"text": "frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "defacdad2fe54876438533f538acc0a1",
"text": "You could find a relative in another country who has the ability to receive PayPal, and have them transfer the money to you via Western Union or Hawala.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "658753afb2ce69e32d23b16aa02a4b7e",
"text": "If I understand TransferWise’s Supported Countries page correctly, you could use their service. I believe it should be cheaper than having the bank convert. I've been very happy with the service and use it regularly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d11cb4a3b0931a5b400b4622e812ebf8",
"text": "I am not aware of a version of Interac available in the U.S., but there are alternative ways to receive money: Cheque. The problem with mailed cheques is that they take time to deliver, and time to clear. If you ship your wares before the cheque has cleared and the cheque is bad, you're out the merchandise. COD. How this works is you place a COD charge on your item at the post office in the amount you charge the customer. The post office delivers the package on the other end when the customer pays. The post office pays you at the time you send the package. There is a fee for this, talk to your local post office or visit the Canada Post website. Money order. Have your U.S. customers send an International Money Order, not a Domestic Money Order. Domestic money orders can only be cashed at a U.S. post office. The problem here is again delivery time, and verifying your customer sent an International Money Order. It can be a pain to have to send back a Domestic Money Order to a customer explaining what they have to do to pay you, even more painful if you don't catch the error before shipping your wares. Credit Card. There are a number of companies offering credit card processing that are much cheaper than a bank. PayPal, Square, and Intuit are three such companies offering these services. After I did my investigations I found Square to be the best deal for me. Please do your own research on these companies (and banks!) and find out which one makes the most sense for you. Some transaction companies may forbid the processing of payment for e-cig materials as they my be classed as tobacco.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2afdb7895ff858324e1611105b470a98",
"text": "\"Bad plan. This seems like a recipe for having your money taken away from you by CBP. Let me explain the biases which make it so. US banking is reliable enough for the common citizen, that everyone simply uses banks. To elaborate, Americans who are unbanked either can't produce simple identity paperwork; or they got an account but then got blacklisted for overdrawing it. These are problems of the poor, not millionaires. Outside of determined \"\"off the grid\"\" folks with political reasons to not be in the banking and credit systsm, anyone with money uses the banking system. Who's not a criminal, anyway. We also have strong laws against money laundering: turning cash (of questionable origin) into \"\"sanitized\"\" cash on deposit in a bank. The most obvious trick is deposit $5000/day for 200 days. Nope, that's Structuring: yeah, we have a word for that. A guy with $1 million cash, it is presumed he has no choice: he can't convert it into a bank deposit, as in this problem - note where she says she can't launder it. If it's normal for people in your country to haul around cash, due to a defective banking system, you're not the only one with that problem, and nearby there'll be a country with a good banking system who understands your situation. Deposit it there. Then retain a US lawyer who specializes in this, and follow his advice about moving the money to the US via funds transfer. Even then, you may have some explaining to do; but far less than with cash. (And keep in mind for those politically motivated off-the-financial-grid types, they're a bit crazy but definitely not stupid, live a cash life everyday, and know the law better than anybody. They would definitely consider using banks and funds transfers for the border crossing proper, because of Customs. Then they'll turn it into cash domestically and close the accounts.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de2a52a96bc2cc98117b5ae5ccf55134",
"text": "An addition to the other answers more than a real answer I suspect. Note that fees are not the only way that you pay for foreign exchange; where no foreign exchange fee is charged the issuer makes it back by giving an appalling spread on the rate. Be very careful not to go for a card that has no fees but an exorbitant spread. I personally would open a CAD denominated account in Canada and convert a larger amount into that account when CAD is historically weak. The spreads will be better that way but don't attempt to use it to mitigate exchange rate risk or to trade the two currencies for profit as that way madness and penury lie.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "800c5783f99b60b8c046861416bb28c6",
"text": "If you trust the other party, an international bank wire would be the quickest, easiest, and cheapest option. It is the standard way to pay for something overseas from the United States. Unfortunately, in most cases, they are not reversible. I don't believe Paypal is an option for an amount that large. Escrow companies do exist, but you would have to research those on a case by case basis to see if any fit the criteria for your transaction and the countries involved. I'll also add: If it were me, and there was no way to get references or verify the person's identity and intent to my satisfaction, then I would probably consider hopping on a plane. For that amount of money, I would verify the person and items are legitimate, in person, and then wire the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6f319e0659b1791e965d38d59ef35fe",
"text": "You would probably be better off wiring the money from your US account to your French account. That IMHO is the cheapest and safest way. It doesn't matter much which bank to use, as it will go through the same route of SWIFT transfer, just choose the banks with the lowest fees on both sides, shop around a little.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1853626fb52451da253d4584c6a00fad",
"text": "\"I sent myself an Tangerine email money transfer. They sent me an email which took me to a website. After I entered the secret answer, they asked me for the destination bank account's details. They asked me to enter the transit number once, the institution number once, and the account number twice. They also showed a bold warning message: \"\"Please ensure that the details of your Canadian Bank Account (account number and bank information) are entered correctly.\"\" Asking for the account number twice isn't a perfect safeguard, but it's better than nothing. In some countries, bank account numbers include a \"\"check digit\"\" for typo prevention, but I was unable to find any evidence online that this is true in Canada. Tangerine's system isn't 100% mistake-proof, but it's good enough that I think I'm going to use it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f",
"text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a404654ead22b2255f0566d521035db",
"text": "\"@sdg's answer is spot-on with the advice to avoid repeated conversions, but I'd like to provide some specifics on the fees involved: Each time you round-trip Canadian dollars (CAD) through a U.S.-dollar (USD) priced security at TD Waterhouse and leave your proceeds in CAD, you're paying a total foreign exchange fee – implied in their rate spread – of about 3%, give or take. That's ~3% per buy & sell combination, or ~1.5% on each end. You can imagine if you trade back & forth frequently, you can quickly lose a lot of money. Do it back and forth ten times in a year and you're out ~30% on the fees alone! The TD U.S. Money Market Fund (TDB166) that TD Waterhouse is referring to has no direct commission to buy or sell, but it does have a Management Expense Ratio (MER) of 0.20% per year – basically a fee which is deducted from the fund's returns (which, today, are also close to zero.) Practically speaking, that's a very slim fee to hold some USD in your Canadian dollar TFSA. While 0.20% is cheap, a point to keep in mind is if you maintain a significant USD balance, you are maintaining currency risk: You can lose money in CAD terms if the CAD appreciates vs. USD. Additional references: Canadian Capitalist describes TD Waterhouse and the use of TDB166 and \"\"wash trades\"\" at How to \"\"Wash\"\" Your Trade? He's referring to RRSPs, but the same applies to TFSAs, which came out after the post was written. Canadian Couch Potato has two relevant articles: Are US-listed ETFs Really Cheaper? and Lowering Your Currency Exchange Fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79eabf0ae820460afcb4fd80cb9bcae9",
"text": "Essentially you can send a Check by mail, you brother deposits into Bank account. It costs very little, the time required would be around 1-2 months. You can do International Wire [Via SWIFT] it would reach in few days, fees are high. You can use specialized remittance services like Money2india, remit2india, or western union etc. The fees are low and generally funds reach in a week.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f678d63d1dfbbadafbbe7c07f7fca21",
"text": "You could use a money transfer service like Western Union or the equivalent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f8931eeb8edde7882438baa17bdae27",
"text": "If you can make the trip to BC yourself, I'd recommend opening an account with TD Canada Trust. They allow non-citizens to make accounts — apparently the only Canadian bank to do so. The customer service is great and they have a good online banking site that will allow you to manage it from the US. If you have an account with TD Bank in the US, it's also very easy to set up a TD Canada account through them that will be linked on their online site (though you will still have separate logins for both and manage them separately). I've done the reverse as a Canadian living in the US. You can set it up over the phone; their Cross-Border Banking number is listed here. They also offer better currency conversion rates than their standard ones when you do a cross-border transfer. You could also look into HSBC as well. They operate in Washington as well as across the border in BC. If you can't open a CAD account locally, they can help you open and manage one in Canada from the US. It may or may not require having a small business account instead of a personal account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
099160fe4188882f9220cfe738b6c08e
|
Is it worth incorporating, when working in Canada as a contractor for an employer in the US?
|
[
{
"docid": "202023489078ad72c57b4565606684c3",
"text": "\"Interesting as I am in the exact same situations as yourself. I, in fact, just incorporated. You will be able \"\"save\"\" more in taxes in the end. The reason I put \"\"save\"\" in quotes, is that you don't necessarily save on taxes, but you can defer taxes. The driving factor behind this is that you specify your own fiscal calendar/year. Incorporating allows you to defer income for up to 6 months. Meaning that if you make your fiscal year starting in August or September, for example, you can claim that income on the following year (August + 6 months = February). It allows you to keep the current year taxes down. Also, any income left over at year end, is taxed at 15% (the Corporation rate) rather than the 30-40% personal rate you get with a sole-proprietorship. In a nutshell, with sole-proprietorship, all income is taxable (after write-offs)... in a corporation, you can take some of that income and keep it in the corporation (gives your company a \"\"value\"\"), and is only taxed at 15% - big saving there. I primarily work with US businesses. I am, however, a dual-citizen, US and Canadian, which allowed me as a sole-proprietor, to easily work with US companies. However, as a sole-proprietor or a Corporation, you simply need to get an EIN from the IRS and any US company will report earnings to that number, with no deductions. At year end, it is your responsibility to file the necessary tax forms and pay the necessary taxes to both countries. Therefore you can solicit new US business if you choose, but this is not restricted to corporations. The real benefit in incorporating is what I mentioned above. My suggestion to you is to speak with you CA, who can outline all benefits. Revenue Canada's website had some good information on this topic as well. Please let me know if you need anything else explained.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7370a33a0e00e3ab8b244ef51854982a",
"text": "\"I know this is a little late but here is my answer. No. You do not \"\"need\"\" to incorporate. In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes. The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions. The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d402dc885d5d6ef6afda8b49de969880",
"text": "You're doing business in the US and derive income from the US, so I'd say that yes, you should file a non-resident tax return in the US. And in Connecticut, as well, since that's where you're conducting business (via your domestic LLC registered there). Since you paid more than $600 to your contractor, you're probably also supposed to send a 1099 to him on that account on behalf of your LLC (which is you, essentially, if you're the only member).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f0b77539fde6780785caa9c608426fb",
"text": "The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d5db709426ecd7f9d7fbe0d9e7ed547",
"text": "They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated. We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cd06f09541ff85e29fb9bb2fa1596e7",
"text": "This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you. Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation. However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25c8de141bcd410796ff629067dd17e8",
"text": "\"First, point: The CRA wants you to start a business with a \"\"Reasonable expectation of profit\"\". They typically expect to see a profit within 5 years, so you may be inviting unwanted questions from future auditors by using a breakeven strategy. Second point: If the goal is to pay as little tax as possible, you may want to consider having the corporation pay you as little as possible. Corporate income taxes are much lower than personal income taxes, according to these two CRA links: How it works is that your company pays you little as an outright salary and offers you perks like a leased company car, expense account for lunch and entertainment, a mobile phone, computer, etc. The company owns all of this stuff and lets you use it as part of the job. The company pays for all this stuff with corporate pre-tax dollars as opposed to you paying for it with personal after-tax dollars. There are specifics on meals & entertainment which modify this slightly (you can claim 50%) but you get the idea. The actual rate difference will depend on your province of residence and your corporate income level. There is also a requirement for \"\"Reasonable Expenses\"\", such that the expenses have to be in line with what you are doing. If you need to travel to a conference each year, that would be a reasonable expense. Adding your family and making it a vacation for everyone would not. You can claim such expenses as a sole proprietor or a corporation. The sole-proprietorship option puts any after-expense profits into your pocket as taxable income, where the corporate structure allows the corporation to hold funds and limit the amount paid out to you. I've seen this strategy successfully done first-hand, but have not done it myself. I am not a lawyer or accountant, consult these professionals about this tax strategy before taking any action.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a6c8b85bac2aa40c815d4671c636b1d",
"text": "Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a27043c26b7dc545bbb03381812a8595",
"text": "As per the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty (the “Treaty”), a U.S. corporation carrying on business in Canada is only subject to taxation on income earned in Canada through a fixed place of business or permanent establishment. Therefore, if a U.S. company does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in Canada then their Canadian source business income is not subject to Canadian federal tax. https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/USA_-eng.asp",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bf683f73eaca9db5871c953efed4ff7",
"text": "\"This is an answer grounded in reality, not advice. Most states have no means of enforcing their foreign business entity registration statutes. Some states never even codified consequences. (California is a notable exception.). Some states have 'business licenses' that you need in order to defend your entity in court, but will retroactively apply the corporate veil when you get the license. The \"\"do I have to register\"\" question is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut. But this doesn't absolve you of looking in the mirror (doing your research). Registration and INCOME taxes are different stories. If a state calls their fee a franchise tax and it is applicable and there are real consequences for not, then you will have to pay that tax. Anyway, this isn't advocating breaking the law, but since it describes ignoring toothless state-chartered agencies, then there are people that will disagree with this post, despite being in line with business climate in the United States. Hope that helps\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37feddb6cb3a7bb862d4267ba2ae404f",
"text": "I'm not missing the point. Canada will still charge you/a corporation income taxes on worldwide income so long as you are resident in Canada. If you are incorporated in Canada but resident elsewhere, you are only subject to tax on Canadian-sourced income. In the US, where you are incorporated is the method of determining liability. Why is one method of determining jurisdiction correct and not the other? 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.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8ea55b8b623ba0c931af98338036e0b",
"text": "\"In the United States, with an S-Corp, you pay yourself a salary from company earnings. That portion is taxed at an individual rate. The rest of the company earnings are taxed as a corporation, which often have great tax benefits. If you are making over $80K/year, the difference can be substantial. A con is that there is more paperwork and you have to create a \"\"board\"\" of advisors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9b1750861a184a70777dda66fa97951",
"text": "\"Be careful here: If ACME were in California, I would pay taxes on USD 17,000 because I had revenue of 20,000 and expenses of 3,000. To CALIFORNIA. And California taxes S-Corps. And, in addition, you'd pay $800 for the right of doing business in the State. All that in addition to the regular Federal and State taxes to the State where you're resident. Suppose that ACME is in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter). My revenue and expenses are the same, but now my money has been earned and my expenses incurred in a foreign country. Same thing exactly. Except that you'll have to pay taxes to the UK. There may be some provision in the tax treaty to help you though, so you may end up paying less taxes when working in the UK than in California. Check with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who won't run away from you after you say the words \"\"Tax Treaty\"\". Does it even make sense to use my S-Corporation to do business in a foreign country? That should be a business decision, don't let the tax considerations drive your business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8ad670321acaed5751ea3172021336",
"text": "I'll just re-post my comment as an answer as i disagree with Michael Pryor. According to this article (and few others) you may save money by incorporating. These factors don’t change the general payroll tax advantage of an S corporation, however: A S corporation can often save business owners substantial amounts of payroll tax if the business profit greatly exceeds what the business needs to pay owners for their work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f732bdd6254aa7f83b1bfdb31ddc9704",
"text": "*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef325af95e1dfafaa8396f9a31045429",
"text": "\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f038bf2b597db2a5ef07ed1a6d562138
|
Will getting a second credit card help my credit rating?
|
[
{
"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": "099eac91527a5d69a45d7fc1555ee08c",
"text": "No. Getting more credit lowers your credit utilization ratio (if you don't use it), which raises your credit rating, this can also be done by asking for a higher limit on your existing credit card. Also, there is a chance that the company you got your first card from won't pull your credit a second time when they go to the underwriter. As any extensions of credit lower your credit score, although the credit utilization ratio is weighted more heavily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "973e93c944b422193f5153439065c64a",
"text": "\"Besides your credit score, there are other smart reasons to have a second line of credit. (Your credit score doesn't affect you the majority of your life, but when it does whoooooo boy does it.) Should the first bank you have credit with create or find a clerical error, a second line of credit can provide a cushion while you sort it out with the first Should physically damage a card, or have it stolen, having a second backup at home will be helpful as you wait for a replacement. Getting a second line of credit with a different institution than your first allows you the flexibility to cancel one and move your business should the deal become unfavorable to you. Multiple lines of credit in of itself is a plus to your credit score (albeit a small one) You can organize your finances. One card handles the recurring payments in your life, the second incidentals. The expected activity type might make it easier to detect fraud. When you get your second line of credit, get it from a different institution than where you have any other business now. (A credit union if you can, or a small local bank). Make sure there is no annual fee, and if there is a reward, be certain it is worth it. Cash back is my favorite because I can spend cash where I like, whereas \"\"points\"\" have to come out of product in their catalogs. Lower interest rate is best of all. Even though you always plan on paying it off every month like clockwork, you might one day run into an issue where you cannot. Lower interest rate becomes very important in that plannings scenario.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "06bf8bf93411127d8d15780505471b29",
"text": "I have found that between the Discover card and a Visa/Master Card a person has everything covered. In my case the Discover card had the best deal (cash back) and the Visa/Master Card took care of those times a vendor didn't take Discover. One big Box store (Costco) did trip us up, so we did end up getting an American Express card. But Costco is dropping that requirement in 2016. One advantage of only having a few cards is that the increase in your total credit line will be split among fewer cards. In your question the highest max limit on one card is $2500, what will you do if you have to take a flight at the last minute and the Airline ticket is more than that? If you need a higher limit, ask for one of your existing cards to raise it; don't go out and get another card. If you see that one of the companies that you already have a card with has a better card, you can ask them to convert your account to that better card. Yes higher total limit does help your utilization ratio portion of the score. But there is some opinion that they also look at the utilization ratio per card. So hitting one card to nearly the max can hurt your score. Three caveats about the number of cards:",
"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": "487342b59ecd1739ead28cebd4f8eefb",
"text": "Credit scores are designed to reflect your ability to make payments on time. As long as you're not closing your old credit card account, you will only see a minimal impact on your score. See estimated credit score breakdowns below:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1c3f6fb7361b508b4af80dc2e022a07",
"text": "\"After this happened the second time, I wonder if there could be a \"\"catch\"\" on this. No I mean, what is my bank's real motivation for allowing me to spend more money. Credit card companies make money in a few ways. By giving you a higher limit the credit card company hopes you will spend more on the card. This immediately gets them more merchant fees and if they are lucky means you will have to carry the balance for a while earning them interest. If they get really lucky you will miss a payment or two earning them some fees. Of course if they let you borrow too much you might never pay it back. So the credit limit is a balancing act. Letting you borrow more money gives them the potential to make more money but also the potential to lose more money. As you build up a history of paying as agreed they feel comfortable lending you more money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f780ede624cc558237341e4335e2dd31",
"text": "The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full. The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts. The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit. That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer. They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall. Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor. However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt. For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative. If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative. If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down. Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating.",
"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": "5f454ce108eafa80cde02d8406ef0899",
"text": "We want to be able to get two cards (related: is it difficult to ask the credit card issuer for two cards, even if the account belongs to one person?) with the best credit limits and perks. No, it's actually quite common to have authorized users on your account. They typically get a separate card with their name on it, but it's attached to your account and may or may not have the same number. Would it be better for me to apply for the card on my own, or would there be an advantage to having her co-sign? Probably faster/easier to just apply yourself and add her an an authorized user. I know some issuers even offer additional sign up bonuses for adding an authorized user. As an afterthought, as her credit improves she can apply for the card and add you as an authorized user to again reap some more signup bonuses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60b4c89dc919cfe0b1745e6ff2d035c9",
"text": "In my own case, my credit score went up drastically after I closed cards. It did go down a bit (like 10 points) in the short term. Within 6 months, however, I did see significant gains. This would include closing the American Express card that I had for like 10 years. According much of what I read, you should never close a AMEX card. I did and it did not hurt me. What helps all this is that my utilization is zero.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13a0e39315b53b0fd86165869dc586b9",
"text": "The length of time you have established credit does improve your credit score in the long run. As long as you can avoid paying interest, you might see if you can get a card with cash back rewards. I have one from Citi that sends me a $50 check every so often when I have enough rewards built up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "05c918562abed0a7ee8b25b7106440c5",
"text": "One of the other things you could do to improve your score would be along the lines of what Pete said in his answer, but using the current financial climate to your advantage. I'm not sure what interest rates are available to you in the UK, but I currently have 4 lines of credit aside from my house. One is a credit card I use for every day purchases and like you pay off immediately with every statement. The other three are technically credit cards, however all three were used to make purchases with 0% financing. The one was for a TV I bought that even gave me 5% off if I pay it off within 6 months. That cash has been sitting in my savings since the day I bought it. I'm making regular payments on all three, but not having to pay any interest. My credit score dropped 25 points with the one as it was an elective medical expense (Visian eye surgery), so for the time the balance is near my credit limit. However, that will bounce back up as the balance lowers. My score was also able to take that hit and still be very high. If you don't have 0% (or very close) available, your better bet would be to follow the other suggestions about saving for a sizable down payment, or other every day expenses like a cell phone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d9b3337e729789a861beafbf9167475",
"text": "\"I wrote How Old is Your Credit Card? some time ago. The answer is yes, this helps the credit score, but this factor, age of accounts, is pretty minimal. Grabbing deals, as you did, I'm actually down to a \"\"C\"\" for this part of my score, but still maintain a 770 score.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "049a24b463e6f44574a0d3fcc3d6ad4f",
"text": "If you don't have other installment loans on your credit report, adding this one could help your credit. That could potentially help you get a better interest rate when you apply for a mortgage. There are positive and negative factors. Positive: Negative:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f7466bc890563ee9345c8834bfb181",
"text": "Also, unless I missed it and someone already mentioned it, do keep in mind the impact of these credit cards balances on your credit score. Over roughly 75% usage on a given credit account reflects badly on your score and has a pretty large impact on how your worthiness is calculated. It gives the impression that you are a person that lives month to month on cards, etc. If you could get both cards down to reasonable balances to where you could begin paying on them regularly and work them down over time, that will not only look incredible for your credit report but also immediately begin making your credit worthiness begin to raise due to the fact that you will not have accounts that (I'm assuming here) are at very high usage (over 75% of your total limit.) If you have to get one card knocked out just to get breathing room, and you're boxed in here -- or honestly even if the mental stress is causing you incredible hardship day to day, then I suppose blow one card out of the water, reassess and start getting to work on that second card. I hope this helped, I'm no expert, but I have had every kind of luck with credit cards and accounts you could think of, so I can only give my experience from the rubber-meets-the-road perspective. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "288b1cb6d1f9f84aeb746dd48ba1e61c",
"text": "\"You should probably call the travel agency and complain. Not that they will care, but if by any chance they do - they can ask PayPal to remove the block. This is what is called \"\"authorization pending\"\". Usually, a credit card transaction has two stages: The merchant requests its payment processor to authorize the transaction. The processor will contact the card issuer with the transaction details and will get the authorization code which will be passed to the merchant. At that stage the transaction enters the \"\"pending\"\" stage on your account. The merchant submits the transaction and gets the money from its payment processor, who forwards the transaction to the card issuer and gets the money from there. The card issuer charges the card owner. The transaction should have the same authorization code received in step #1, and by matching it to the pending transaction, the card issuer removes the pending transaction, and posts the actual transaction. However, if the transaction in step #2 doesn't include the code from step #1, the match doesn't occur and you see the situation you have now: both the actual transaction and the pending are active. In this case the merchant should contact its merchant processor and request the revocation of the authorization code. The processor will then forward the request to the card issuer, who will then remove the pending transaction. As you can see - multiple parties have to actually care for that to happen, and many times they don't, because they don't have to. As to the period - it's up to the card issuer (PayPal in your case), but 1 month is a very long time. Usually it's about a week or two, unless it's a hotel/car rental. In any case - once it expires, it will go away on its own and if you don't mind for the amounts to be blocked until then - just let it expire. The fact that you used a debit card for this transaction is irrelevant. Unless it was a pin transaction, debit card transactions are processed as credit card transactions by processors. For pin transactions, there process is different and you shouldn't see doubles. If it was a pin transaction - contact PayPal and check with them what's going on. Generally, PayPal is not to be used as a \"\"bank account\"\", it is merely a payment processor, and it is advised to remove the money from there as soon as possible.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4066ff29dc9b028cadbff6c82ab6ba3c
|
What factors should I consider in picking a bond?
|
[
{
"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": "296b7a2e96d632ad86e69f69b97d10fe",
"text": "It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here. A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments. My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities. Government bonds earn way too little. The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity. I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it. My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people. If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap. If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "6e732648b31005f1d4e21e034a068d67",
"text": "There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1c46893327d804557dd536a856247f9",
"text": "tl,dr: I-bonds do not fit well into most personal finance plans. First the questions (succinct reference): I like your thought process weighing your liquidity and risk versus your return. This is very important. However, I think you might be sidetracked a bit by I-Bonds. I-Bonds are not generally good for personal investment as they are not marketable when necessary, have redemption penalties and hold lower overall yields in general. Finally, they are significantly harder to trade as you can buy and hold a TIPS ETF and get exposure to all maturities and get the current competitive rate all in one purchase. Inflation protection is in general an interesting problem. While inflation-protected bonds sound like they are great for inflation protection (after all it is in the name), they may not be the best instruments for long/medium term protection. It is really important to remember that inflation protected bonds have significantly lower returns and one form of inflation protection is to just have more money in the future. TIPS really protect against large inflation changes as normal bonds have the future expected inflation already baked in their higher rates. Also, when you own a stock you own part of a company and inflation will increase the value of the company relative to the inflated currency. Foreign stocks can give even more protection if you think inflation in your local currency is going to be higher then the foreign currency. Stocks in the past have had significantly higher return overall than inflation protected bonds but have higher risk as well. As a medium term, low-risk portfolio, it is worth looking into some combination of TIPS, normal bonds and a small to medium allocation of local/foreign stocks all done through low-fee mutual funds or index ETFs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e6602bd884bae5981aa067b8b0c3763",
"text": "\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \"\"enhanced\"\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \"\"ease of transacting\"\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34cd5a23fbe463b0ccd510681344e33d",
"text": "As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f741b5e69fc8bdf210951b55a0ed4c7",
"text": "There are some useful comments about the tradeoffs of the decisions in front of you. Intertwined with the financial choices, hopefully you can see a map opening up. Make a little chart if it helps. Benefit and Cost. If you're looking for financial options, you will have to also add more columns to that chart: Option and Cost. An example is the comment on making connections with rich kids. Trust fund babies are everywhere in this country. Did you know any rich kids while growing up? How were those rich kids you knew of back then... in your school... in your town? How did they treat you? Were you ever invited to their parties or gatherings? Now there's an opportunity for the privilege to pay a lot of money to sit in a classroom next to them? Even in the early days of American history with merit based millionaires... tycoons who made it rich by the seat of their pants. At fancy dinner parties and soirees, a new term emerged to put each other again out of reach: old money (the deserving) and new money (uncultured climbers). That's my bias. You'll have some of your own. What is important to YOU has to come through because these days, the price tag of any higher education implies a considerable piece of your life's timeline will be committed to... something. Make sure you get what you feel is worth that commitment. Take stock of what has been said here by the others, but put a value on those choices and seriously consider what you're willing to pay for... and what you're not. There is no formula for your success as there's been thousands of exceptions... ESID (Every Situation is Different).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7f7cafcede60bd36387d7995a2bf706",
"text": "Bond MF/ETF comes in many flavour, one way to look at them is corporate, govt. (gilt/sovreign), money market (short term, overnight lending etc.), govt. backed bonds. The ETF/MFs that invest money in these are also different types. One way to evaluate an ETF/MF is to see where they invest your money. Corporate debts are by the highest coupon paying bonds, however, the chance of default is also greater, if you wish to invest in these, it is preferable to look at the ETF/MF's debt portfolio financial ratings (Moodies etc.). Govt. bonds are more stable and unless the govt. defaults (which happens more often than we would like to think), here also look for higher rating bonds portfolio that the fund/scheme carries. The govt. backed bonds are somewhat similar to sovreign bonds, however, these are issuesd by institutions which are backed by govt. (e.g. national railways, municipal bodies etc.), any fund/scheme that invests in these bonds could also be considered and similarly measured. The last are the short term money market related, which provides the least return but are very liquid. It is very difficult to answer how you should invest large sum on ETF/MFs that are bond oriented. However, from any investment perspective, it is better to spread your money. If I take your hypthetical case of 1M$, I would divide it into 100K$ pieces and invest in 10 different ETF/MF schemes of different flavour: Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e431c2f9d469ccc33da64dbcf88180e7",
"text": "Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5983c003ade5140773b9f348f02fc90",
"text": "I'll get to my answer in a moment, but first need to put focus on the two key components of bond prices: interest rates and credit risk. Suppose that the 10-year treasury has a coupon of 2% per year (it would be paid as 1% twice per year, in reality). If you own one contract of the bond which we suppose has a so-called face-value of $100, then this contract will over the ten years pay you a total of $20 in coupons, then $100 at redemption. So $120 in total. Would you therefore buy this 10-year treasury bond for $120, or more, or less? Well, if there were bank accounts around which were offering you an interest rate of 2% per year fixed for the next 10 years, then you could alternatively generate $120 from just $100 deposited now (if we assume that the interest paid is not put back in the account to earn 2% per year). Consequently, a price of $100 for the treasury would seem about right. However, suppose that you are not very confident that the banks that offer these accounts will even be around in 10 years time, maybe they will fail before that and you'll never get your money back. Then you might say to yourself that the above calculation is mathematically right, but not really a full representation of the different risks. And you conclude that maybe treasuries should be a bit more expensive, because they offer better credit risk than bank deposits. All of this just to show that the price of bonds is a comparative valuation of rates and credit: you need to know the general level of interest rates available in other investment products (even in stocks, I'd say), you need to have a feel for how much credit risk there is in the different investment products. Most people think that 'normally' interest rates are positive, because we are so familiar with the basic principle that: if I lend you some money then you need to pay me some interest. But in a world where everyone is worried about bank failures, people might prefer to effectively 'deposit' our savings with the US treasury (by buying their bonds) than to deposit their savings in the local bank. The US treasury will see this extra demand and put up the prices of their bonds (they are not stupid at the US treasury, you know!), so maybe the price of the 10-year treasury will go above $120. It could, right? In this scenario, the implied yield on the 10-year treasury is negative. There you go, yields have gone negative because of credit risk concerns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d9ab81d5f86195c4cce1c5fd44ed92f",
"text": "Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course. Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "580b87fa9582f0ad27639ac85955d59a",
"text": "\"Looking at the list of bonds you listed, many of them are long dated. In short, in a rate rising environment (it's not like rates can go much lower in the foreseeable future), these bond prices will drop in general in addition to any company specific events occurred to these names, so be prepared for some paper losses. Just because a bond is rated highly by credit agencies like S&P or Moody's does not automatically mean their prices do not fluctuate. Yes, there is always a demand for highly rated bonds from pension funds, mutual funds, etc. because of their investment mandates. But I would suggest looking beyond credit ratings and yield, and look further into whether these bonds are secured/unsecured and if secured, by what. Keep in mind in recent financial crisis, prices of those CDOs/CLOs ended up plunging even though they were given AAA ratings by rating agencies because some were backed by housing properties that were over-valued and loans made to borrowers having difficulties to make repayments. Hence, these type of \"\"bonds\"\" have greater default risks and traded at huge discounts. Most of them are also callable, so you may not enjoy the seemingly high yield till their maturity date. Like others mentioned, buying bonds outright is usually a big ticket item. I would also suggest reviewing your cash liquidity and opportunity cost as oppose to investing in other asset classes and instruments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61e08f0d238c2474a7eb648aac96c339",
"text": "\"TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK. According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London. That sounds like a terrible deal to me. I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks. For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.). If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to \"\"lose everything\"\" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: \"\"I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.\"\" Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold. In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend. Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money? In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment? If not, you will be speculating, not investing. Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing. I don't recommend speculating.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a788530bc453279d6cb30eacfdb56dc7",
"text": "There are two main factors at play to consider. Also, realize that no advice is universal. You need to evaluate your exact situation and do what is best for you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5d88e458830287053180e493dc06aab9
|
Why did the Swiss National Bank fix the EUR/CHF exchange rate at CHF 1.20?
|
[
{
"docid": "2977444346bc6bafa9b6942e71be2609",
"text": "\"Due to the issues in the Eurozone, many foreign investors were buying Swiss Francs as a hedge against a Euro devaluation. They were in effect treating the Franc like gold, silver or some other commodity with perceived intrinsic value. This causes huge problems from the Swiss, as the value of the Franc increased and their exports became more expensive for foreigners to purchase. Things were getting bad enough that the Swiss in some places were travelling to Germany to buy groceries! To enforce this \"\"fixing\"\" of the Franc, the Swiss Central Bank announced that they would buy foreign currency in unlimited quantities by printing Francs. In reality, just announcing that they were going to do this was sufficient to discourage foreign investors from loading up on Francs. NPR's Planet Money did a really good job covering this topic:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a01dfe65090fa6172f2f2c6f31f3b3d4",
"text": "\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \"\"better\"\" or \"\"more correctly\"\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3336d6fc35d673959c37b0dcb67d246c",
"text": "It's not. If you look at the page you link to and change dates, it's clear the rate changes a bit. 120.15 120.1 per hundred. The Swiss can keep the 1.200 as a target and if it's higher, sell agingst the euro to bring it down, if lower, buy. If the swiss experienced a serious financial crisis and their currency fell, they may not have the power to control it, if the rest of the world said it was worth less, you can be sure it will fall.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f18f3c5e4610ab3f40cdc8e509be5c33",
"text": "\"Bank for International Settlements (BIS) are the guys in Switzerland that came up with the Basel accords and gave us fun things like Capital Adequacy Ratios and kept bankers constipated for the last decade. It seems According to them, the bankers have been up to no good again and have been engaging in bank to bank currency swaps and derivative swaps in a manner that has allowed them to by pass regulatory safe guards and hide the debt off balance sheet, and a situation is occurring where they have to pay back their debt before the debt that is owed to them matures and that could lead to a credit crunch and liquidity crisis. The trigger they feel for this could be a rise in inflation in the US which would lead to the Fed raising rates or an unforeseen shock to the dollar that would tighten the market. \"\"Signs of excess are visible everywhere. “Corporate debt is now considerably higher than it was pre-crisis. Leverage indicators have reached levels reminiscent of those that prevailed during previous corporate credit booms. A growing share of firms face interest expenses exceeding earnings before interest and taxes,” said the report. Up shit creek and its in danger of popping\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "411a0d4eb5c817cf575e82c2ed0d5c25",
"text": "It seems possible if the Euro is partially/entirely unwound that policies could be enacted to prohibit exactly this behavior, otherwise what will stop outflow to the stronger countries on a massive scale? (Thus amplifying the resulting decade-long clusterfuck) We've never had this situation in Europe before, and already for Greece and Spain there are suggestions to instigate withdrawal controls. It doesn't seem far fetched to imagine retroactive controls placed on private deposits in newly-foreign-currency banks. If I were concerned about the Euro's collapse I'd be more inclined to move assets out of the eurozone entirely",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e83d0a17d6016f0a1252a86909c2d29e",
"text": "\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \"\"root value\"\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a197c559e154cf6363be0698879082be",
"text": "\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \"\"pimp countries\"\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1efb7090aedbe05bd825078862807e9",
"text": "It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8fb271efafbf0a477901f22bb9c94d3",
"text": "\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d91a22f26eca67e948746de9b9fc394",
"text": "You might want to see this question and its answers. If it was me, I'd prefer to exchange the currency in Germany. Why? When you are in the US you will be on vacation. It does not seem fun to spend vacation time in a bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48f0b8daf92c94325fe3993451500c40",
"text": "The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest. Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent. I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month). In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a difference in (perceived) risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "883cafa8f5663e43e4c96d54317ed88f",
"text": "Banks in certain countries are offering such facility. However I am not aware of any Bank in Hungary offering this. So apart from maintaining a higher amount in HUF, there by reducing the costs [and taking the volatility risks]; there aren't many options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e6e5b8d781282d4e55d3ec17f65a88c",
"text": "As others said, Greece cannot set.monetary policy because that is the job of the ECB. If you meant fiscal policy, then you are right: their high levels of debt plus their default this year make it so that they cannot unilaterally borrow more money to run a deficit as the private market will not lend to them. This makes them dependent on a bailout.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ff17969f7fe94d417aea463bb9a3d9e",
"text": "Certainly. My old professor of international relations used to say that if we wanted to understand complex issues, what we really needed to do was try to follow the lines of national interest. Here it seems like the Germans are acting against the national interest of the entire rest of the Eurozone, only for their narrow short-term interest. Its disgusting!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04570ba774855f975b423ad53c6b78a0",
"text": "Yes, they need expansionary monetary policy to help them with their internal devaluation. However, this involves leaving the euro. So there are additional costs to the normal costs of inflation, they are experiencing some of these costs right now as capital is fleeing the country and it will get worse if/when they really leave. It's also worth keeping in mind that Greece doesn't have very good institutions (it's why they are in this mess in the first place), so it's hard to say that they'll be able to leave the euro and devalue without also trying out policies that will lead to hyperinflation. Internal devaluation is possible without expansionary monetary policy, but it takes some time and the capital flight in anticipation of taxes/neo-drachmas means that meanwhile there is also little investment in the economy in the meantime.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54be78b2e13dda55e7fb0871c1cc7b76",
"text": "\"How Italians have a general mistrust in the euro and the ECB makes me crazy. The country with over 2000 billion in debt, that got its ass saved by quantitative easing done by the European Central Bank (iirc, 46% of bonds bought were of the Italian debt). No politicians says he wants to reduce the debt, no, the problem is again something \"\"outside\"\". How about reforming Italian banks and their infamous credits they're still not writing off as losses because of politics? How about reducing the debt? How each and everyone who has a bank account in Italy isn't grateful to Draghi is a mystery to me. The consequences of driving a G8 country, the 3rd largest economy in the EU, to the ground because of moronic politicians who can't for the love of their life plan long term are horrible. It's not like the fucks given by politicians are hidden in this new currency system. FFS. Quick edit: problem number 1, 2 and 3 of Italy is to reduce its debt. Il resto è noia, everything else is boredom.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "455ceacc14850079dda8e7f4e7bd571d",
"text": "I've been short the Euro for several months now against the USD (could be various others as well). I got in at 1.42, sold on a bounce up to 1.36, bought back at 1.38 and now will probably ride it out lower. Regardless of whether or not the Eurozone breaks up, I see it breaking through the 1.30 mark in the near-term. After that, I'm not sure how low it goes, but there is certainly potential for it to head towards 1/1. In order to reduce the burden, the ECB needs to devalue the currency. Although Germany really doesn't want this due to their anti-inflationary ideology, if Italy comes crashing down, so does France. When France goes, Germany goes into a deep recession if not a depression. They have to devalue some. As for a collapse, I have no idea. It probably depends on how many (if any) countries retain the currency and who they are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b183651f1a0a7f534883338f1b88285",
"text": "Some comments above are inaccurate. Advertised interest rates for deposits and savings in Russia (from Russian banks) are generally for Ruble (RUB) denominated accounts; however, USD and EUR denominated accounts still offer favorable interest rates when compared to Western counterparts. For example, Sberbank advertises these Annual Interest Rates: RUB — 8.79–11.52% USD — 2.05–5.31% EUR — 2.05–5.21%",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4c470f19321205d7b096ea0323d518f1
|
Is gold really an investment or just a hedge against inflation?
|
[
{
"docid": "53797b151ae0daf43edf5e83c4fc64bd",
"text": "The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ac2209c513ee6c964e7277b426315ba",
"text": "Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bbe2c6b9aa77bb5daa6f4cc56c5fdf4",
"text": "Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc. Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India. To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate. Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold. India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth. Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here. Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers. The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years. Investors then jump on the 'rising price bandwagon' as especially does anyone that can make a profit from selling gold to those seeking to get on said bandwagon. As such, as long as indian cultural tradition remains unchanged, and their economy remains strong, the resulting increasing demand for gold will sustain current and perhaps increased prices. Should there be any sudden collapse in the Indian GDP, gold will likely tumble in parallel. disclaimer: not an expert, just observations based off the data I've seen, there may be other parts to the picture of 'gold demand' that I've not considered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f53751a09601e4815ee181201e20979",
"text": "\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f82eef360c642b80cbd1041bd8dcd02",
"text": "\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f7068685da6d41e4de33c1724134345",
"text": "From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf90b0dcaa1f707395818029b671ef11",
"text": "\"Over time, gold has mainly a hedge against inflation, based on its scarcity value. That is, unless finds some \"\"killer app\"\" for it that would also make it a good investment. The \"\"usual\"\" ones, metallurgical, electronic, medicine, dental, don't really do the trick. It should be noted that gold performs its inflation hedge function over a long period of time, say $50-$100 years. Over shorter periods of time, it will spike for other reasons. The latest classic example was in 1979-80, and the main reason, in my opinion, was the Iranian hostage crisis (inflation was secondary.) This was a POLITICAL risk situation, but one that was not unwarranted. An attack on 52 U.S. hostages (diplomats, no less), was potenially an attack on the U.S. dollar. But gold got so pricey that it lost its \"\"inflation hedge\"\" function for some two decades (until about 2000). Inflation has not been a notable factor in 2011. But Mideastern political risk has been. Witness Egypt, Libya, and potentially Syria and other countries. Put another way, gold is less of an investment that a \"\"hedge.\"\" And not just against inflation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "abbd8527e5c47df542b88717fd1bc8e9",
"text": "\"Okay - but that's about gold as an investment in today's world, and during an extremely unstable financial situation. Many other types of investments could be used similarly. Those who advocate gold as a hedge don't advocate buying it during a crisis, they advocate keeping some as part of an investment strategy... but again, that's gold as gold, not gold as currency. Leveraging your investments based on current financial situations is what investing is about. Gold as a medium for currency is a totally different thing. What you just described would be called \"\"arbitrage\"\" - in moving markets (or other situations I guess) looking for no-lose situations where you can trade things around and increase your net value doing it. it helps stabilize markets - as people take advantage of this situation it counters the effect and self-corrects... think about it ;)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c8e924a6429b9e56cd3a540c31c768",
"text": "\"There's too much here for one question. So no answer can possibly be comprehensive. I think little of gold for the long term. I go to MoneyChimp and see what inflation did from 1974 till now. $1 to $4.74. So $200 inflates to $950 or so. Gold bested that, but hardly stayed ahead in a real way. The stock market blew that number away. And buying gold anytime around the 1980 runup would still leave you behind inflation. As far as housing goes, I have a theory. Take median income, 25% of a month's pay each month. Input it as the payment at the going 30yr fixed rate mortgage. Income rises a bit faster than inflation over time, so that line is nicely curved slightly upward (give or take) but as interest rates vary, that same payment buys you far more or less mortgage. When you graph this, you find the bubble in User210's graph almost non-existent. At 12% (the rate in '85 or so) $1000/mo buys you $97K in mortgage, but at 5%, $186K. So over the 20 years from '85 to 2005, there's a gain created simply by the fact that money was cheaper. No mania, no bubble (not at the median, anyway) just the interest rate effect. Over the same period, inflation totaled 87%. So the same guy just keeping up with inflation in his pay could then afford a house that was 3.5X the price 20 years prior. I'm no rocket scientist, but I see few articles ever discussing housing from this angle. To close my post here, consider that homes have grown in size, 1.5%/yr on average. So the median new home quoted is actually 1/3 greater in size in 2005 than in '85. These factors all need to be normalized out of that crazy Schiller-type* graph. In the end, I believe the median home will always tightly correlate to the \"\"one week income as payment.\"\" *I refer here to the work of professor Robert Schiller partner of the Case-Schiller index of home prices which bears his name.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a39e6c7e315edaca02de2944834706e6",
"text": "I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1df8591be32d4babf6b7a50426ebacda",
"text": "Yes - it's called the rate of inflation. The rate of return over the rate of inflation is called the real rate of return. So if a currency experiences a 2% rate of inflation, and your investment makes a 3% rate of return, your real rate of return is only 1%. One problem is that inflation is always backwards-looking, while investment returns are always forward-looking. There are ways to calculate an expected rate of inflation from foreign exchange futures and other market instruments, though. That said, when comparing investments, typically all investments are in the same currency, so the effect of inflation is the same, and inflation makes no difference in a comparative analysis. When comparing investments in different currencies, then the rate of inflation may become important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc918d7d360e8385f3ff962b9230f3a",
"text": "\"The difficulty with investing in mining and gold company stocks is that they are subject to the same market forces as any other stocks, although they may whether those forces better in a crisis than other stocks do because they are related to gold, which has always been a \"\"flight to safety\"\" move for investors. Some investors buy physical gold, although you don't have to take actual delivery of the metal itself. You can leave it with the broker-dealer you buy it from, much the way you don't have your broker send you stock certificates. That way, if you leave the gold with the broker-dealer (someone reputable, of course, like APMEX or Monex) then you can sell it quickly if you choose, just like when you want to sell a stock. If you take delivery of a security (share certificate) or commodity (gold, oil, etc.) then before you can sell it, you have to return it to broker, which takes time. The decision has much to do with your investing objectives and willingness to absorb risk. The reason people choose mutual funds is because their money gets spread around a basket of stocks, so if one company in the fund takes a hit it doesn't wipe out their entire investment. If you buy gold, you run the risk (low, in my opinion) of seeing big losses if, for some reason, gold prices plummet. You're \"\"all in\"\" on one thing, which can be risky. It's a judgment call on your part, but that's my two cents' worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea59ac7efc1564bd9772aec0fc73a5c",
"text": "\"It's not clear that anything needs to go up if gold goes down. In a bubble, asset prices can just collapse, without some other asset increasing to compensate. Economies are not a zero-sum game. On the other hand, gold may fall when people decide they don't need to hoard some store of value that, to their minds, never changes. It could very well indicate that there is more confidence in the broader economy. I am not a gold bug, so I don't much see the point in \"\"investing\"\" in something that is non-productive and also inedible, but to each his own.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51f09d8025fb86f43c74dfdb82941039",
"text": "\"Two points: One, yes -- the price of gold has been going up. [gold ETF chart here](http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1349467200000&chddm=495788&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSEARCA:IAU&ntsp=0&ei=PQhvUMjiAZGQ0QG5pQE) Two, the US has confiscated gold in the past. They did it in the 1930s. Owning antique gold coins is stupid because you're paying for gold + the supply / demand imbalance forced upon that particular coin by the coin collector market. If you want to have exposure to gold in your portfolio, the cheapest way is through an ETF. If you want to own physical gold because a) it's shiny or b) you fear impending economic collapse -- you're probably better off with bullion from a reputable dealer. You can buy it in grams or ounces -- you can also buy it in coins. Physical gold will generally cost you a little more than the spot price (think 5% - 10%? -- not really sure) but it can vary wildly. You might even be able to buy it for under the spot price if you find somebody that isn't very bright willing to sell. Buyer beware though -- there are lots of shady folks in the \"\"we buy gold\"\" market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1780c956b6e79156a96d46a6b5e1ce97",
"text": "\"Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not \"\"safe\"\"; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4716c4aba4846bb7b7f17bbdd83f777e",
"text": "I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eefe526e99c585f680907b8039439560",
"text": "Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f28edc15e301af581cc4338182d9b599",
"text": "Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd76bf49f90e365dbefa44a87fbeae98",
"text": "You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08cec8c13d6cc51c6f85f6b481c17691",
"text": "Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea277229a31bb3a52cb07a41ce3bd35",
"text": "\"If you're really a part-time worker, then there are some simple considerations.... The remote working environment, choice of own hours, and non-guarantee of work availability point to your \"\"part-time\"\" situation being more like a consultancy, and that would normally double or triple the gross hourly rate. But if they're already offering or paying you a low hourly figure, they are unlikely to give you consultant rates.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a66e3822a21d40ef4324dcc5f0a33901",
"text": "This makes a lot of sense. So yeah you can’t cheat the FTC anymore but users also can’t cheat you anymore. Essentially that’s what you’re saying right? Also I say “you” meaning dishonest marketers of which the world is full of. I wasn’t accusing you of being dishonest. I used to work for a company that made apps and we did all of our marketing on Instagram because it was the only thing that had a return on investment. It was dishonest but from the numbers it was literally the only thing that worked for what we could afford as an app development start up because app development certainly isn’t cheap or fast.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
81af0116daa2c3c215589c1c26ad4a59
|
To rebalance or not to rebalance
|
[
{
"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": "91ac0fed77d4e280fa2c49c0ad065fa6",
"text": "\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4c28ac3383dd84dadb68bc2235db2d5",
"text": "\"Rebalancing is, simply, a way of making sure your risk/reward level is where you want it to be. Let's say you've decided that your optimal mix is 50% stocks and 50% bonds (or 50% US stocks, 50% international, or 30/30/30 US large-cap/US small-cap/US midcap...). So you buy $100 of each, but over time, the prices will of course fluctuate. At the end of the year, the odds that the ratio of the value of your investments is equal to the starting ratio is nil. So you rebalance to get your target mix again. Rebalance too often and you end up paying a lot in transaction fees. Rebalance not often enough and you end up running outsize risk. People who tell you that you should rebalance to make money, or use \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or think there is any upside to rebalancing outside of risk management are making assumptions about the market (mean regressing or some such thing) that generally you should avoid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d111d0a34e4c97ece2156e010e6b1b4e",
"text": "\"In theory, investing is not gambling because the expected outcome is not random; people are expecting positive returns, on average, with some relationship to risk undertaken and economic reality. (More risk = more returns.) Historically this is true on average, that assets have positive returns, and riskier assets have higher returns. Also it's true that stock market gains roughly track economic growth. Valuation (current price level relative to \"\"fundamentals\"\") matters - reversion to the mean does exist over a long enough time. Given a 7-10 year horizon, a lot of the variance in ending price level can be explained by valuation at the start of the period. On average over time, business profits have to vary around a curve that's related to the overall economy, and equity prices should reflect business profits. The shorter the horizon, the more random noise. Even 1 year is pretty short in this respect. Bubbles do exist, as do irrational panics, and milder forms of each. Investing is not like a coin flip because the current total number of heads and tails (current valuation) does affect the probability of future outcomes. That said, it's pretty hard to predict the timing, or the specific stocks that will do well, etc. Rebalancing gives you an objective, automated, unemotional way to take advantage of all the noise around the long-term trend. Rather than trying to use judgment to identify when to get in and out, with rebalancing (and dollar cost averaging) you guarantee getting in a bit more when things are lower, and getting out a bit more when things are higher. You can make money from prices bouncing around even if they end up going nowhere and even if you can't predict the bouncing. Here are a couple old posts from my blog that talk about this a little more:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fff57d0c07b6259311cbbb60168e3037",
"text": "This answer will assume you know more math than most. An ideal case: For the point of argument, first consider the following admittedly incorrect assumptions: 1) The prices of all assets in your investment universe are continuously differentiable functions of time. 2) Investor R (for rebalance) continuously buys and sells in order to maintain a constant proportion of each of several investments in his portfolio. 3) Investor P (for passive) starts with the same portfolio as R, but neither buys nor sells Then under the assumptions of no taxes or trading costs, it is a mathematical theorem that investor P's portfolio return fraction will be the weighted arithmetic mean of the return fractions of all the individual investments, whereas investor R will obtain the weighted geometric mean of the return fractions of the individual investments. It's also a theorem that the weighted arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the weighted geometric mean, so regardless of what happens in the market (given the above assumptions) the passive investor P does at least as well as the rebalancing investor R. P will do even better if taxes and trading costs are factored in. The real world: Of course prices aren't continuously differentiable or even continuous, nor can you continuously trade. (Indeed, under such assumptions the optimal investing strategy would be to sample the prices sufficiently rapidly to capture the derivatives and then to move all your assets to the stock increasing at the highest relative rate. This crazy momentum trading would explosively destabilize the market and cause the assumptions to break.) The point of this is not to argue for or against rebalancing, but to point out that any argument for rebalancing which continues to hold under the above ideal assumptions is bogus. (Many such arguments do.) If a stockbroker standing to profit from commission pushes rebalancing on you with an argument that still holds under the above assumptions then he is profiting off of BS.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c97d81678b366cd5a96f1a805db91cee",
"text": "Yes E[x] is expected value of x. E[x|y] = expected value of x, given y. c, k are some constants Let E[s_{n+1}|s_n=c] = c, but if E[s_{n+1}|s_n,s_{n-1},...,s_{n-m}] ->some constant k as m->\\infty (call this equation 1) then rebalancing makes sense. Notes:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7658a2827e8c0dfc9718a89e0c64f7aa",
"text": "\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \"\"on sale\"\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "614f000308e628a7beaebe5b18c56020",
"text": "Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e034c4331d15e3aef5d73451913e17b2",
"text": "If you have significant assets, such as a large deposit, then diversification of risks such as currency risk is good practice - there are many good options, but keeping 100% of it in roubles is definitely not a good idea, nor is keeping 100% of it in a single foreign currency. Of course, it would be much more beneficial to have done it yesterday, and moments of extreme volatility generally are a bad time to make large uninformed trades, but if the deposit is sufficiently large (say, equal to annual expenses) then it would make sense to split it among different currencies and also different types of assets as well (deposit/stocks/precious metals/bonds). The rate of rouble may go up and down, but you also have to keep in mind that future events such as fluctuating oil price may risk a much deeper crisis than now, and you can look to experiences of the 1998 crisis as an example of what may happen if the situation continues to deteriorate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07a683e257b1d57524ea87fa056efd0f",
"text": "Taking as given that your definition of VA involves selling at intermediate times, your question can be made more general. After all, value averaging is just one special case of a portfolio that rebalances to target weights periodically. Do back-end fees (and front-end fees) harm the value of portfolios that require rebalancing? The answer is yes, they do. Those fees are put in place in order to prevent investors from redeeming shares over any but the longest horizons. Any portfolio that rebalances periodically will involve some periodic selling. If you invest in a fund with front-end or back-end fees, it is optimal to leave your money in it for as long as possible and not do any rebalancing. If you want to run a portfolio that is at all active (involves rebalancing), then it is probably wise to use no-load funds. These are often some of the best and cheapest funds anyway, but even if front or back end load funds have a lower expense ratio, you will likely lose money on those loads as you rebalance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cca1f388f296720d6f055eea0c36174e",
"text": "If your criteria has changed but some of your existing holdings don't meet your new criteria you should eventually liquidate them, because they are not part of your new strategy. However, you don't want to just liquidate them right now if they are currently performing quite well (share price currently uptrending). One way you could handle this is to place a trailing stop loss on the stocks that don't meet your current criteria and let the market take you out when the stocks have stopped up trending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af7e4c925d7f01f3b0f1aae9348cac36",
"text": "\"Well what he was trying to say is that support should be prioritized higher as an investment rather than cut to the bone as a necessary overhead evil. Yes, they all still need to be balanced, so technically it's a true statement, but the implication with which it was said was \"\"you shouldn't be pouring money into support. Ever.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbe9180f1cff5262fcf27862358c007a",
"text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "000c45b503d857f5f81da23d773a0aae",
"text": "(a) 5 funds for $15K is not too many or too few ? A bit high as I'd wonder if you've thought of how you'll rebalance the funds over time so you aren't investing too much in a particular market segment. I'd also question if you know what kinds of fees you may have with those funds as some of Vanguard's index funds had fees if the balance is under $10K that may change how much you'll be paying. From Vanguard's site: We charge a $20 annual account service fee for each Vanguard fund with a balance of less than $10,000 in an account. This fee doesn’t apply if you sign up for account access on Vanguard.com and choose electronic delivery of statements, confirmations, and Vanguard fund reports and prospectuses. This fee also doesn’t apply to members of Flagship®, Voyager Select®, and Voyager Services®. So, if you don't do the delivery this would be an extra $100/year that I wonder if you factored that into things here. (b) Have I diversified my portfolio too much or not enough ? Perhaps I am missing something that would be recommended for the portfolio of this kind with this goal. Both, in my opinion. Too much in the sense that you are looking at Morningstar's style box to pick a fund for this box and that which I'd consider consolidating on one hand yet at the same time I notice that you are sticking purely to US stocks and ignoring international funds. I do think taxes may be something you haven't considered too much as stocks will outgrow most of those funds and trigger capital gains that you don't mention at all. (c) If not my choice of my portfolio, where would you invest $15K under similar circumstances and similar goals. What is the goal here? You state that this is your first cash investment but don't state if this is for retirement, a vacation in 10 years, a house in 7 years or a bunch of other possibilities which is something to consider. If I consider this as retirement investments, I'd like pick 1 or 2 funds known for being tax-efficient that would be where I'd start. So, if a fund goes down 30%, that's OK? Do you have a rebalancing strategy of any kind? Do you realize what taxes you may have even if the fund doesn't necessarily have gains itself? In not stating a goal, I wonder how well do you have a strategy worked out for how you'll sell off these funds down the road at some point as something to ponder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4eda5d941ef9f38511d2d191b1803f8",
"text": "Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75bcad1593ac0755ac3d8e9080e922d7",
"text": "\"Doesn't \"\"no rebalancing\"\" mean \"\"start with a portfolio and let it fly?\"\" Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just \"\"buy\"\" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50662f953cc4b7404eaf863a01511a40",
"text": "The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline). The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level. However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back. So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%. Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par. This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great. And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "586200e8f685acbfec8ff09bf4bec44f",
"text": "If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA. If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7034b1830c9bba00e0fa8ff154ab84d5",
"text": "\"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b21e111173e3ecdcd7780e47437aa2b",
"text": "\"There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to \"\"win it back\"\" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "866e56378c12f624de147a562a7a2657",
"text": "There is little difference. A paycheck is a type of check used to pay wages. These days many people opt for direct deposit. So, the term paycheck can also refer to the payment itself: 1: a check in payment of wages or salary 2: wages, salary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paycheck",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
860eb0d44d030e301dd9e49ff18f9241
|
How do I fold side-income into our budget so my husband doesn't know?
|
[
{
"docid": "3a4a8dd5a57c38287ab10c0c54e8cf5d",
"text": "\"Maybe you can just hang onto the cash and upgrade the things you buy for cash now a bit. Buy the better cut of meat, the nicer pair of shoes, etc. Since you have no trouble with bending the truth a bit.. if challenged, the shoes were \"\"on sale\"\". And no you must have lost the receipt. Not that I'm advocating it, but the only time I notice my better half's shoe habit is when a garbage bag of the old ones goes out the door.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3950f1ad4e77c82d99f9948bacb7260b",
"text": "These earnings will likely have tax implications, depending on where in the world you are. So, your budget concerns not nearly as important as having an honest conversation about money with your husband. Better for him to be mad about the truth than to continue the lie, and potentially have this become a much larger legal, not just marital, problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d2af624467f55f94a5ba267e86019b7",
"text": "I doubt that it is possible to keep something like this secret from your husband forever. If you get away with it once, I'd guess you'll probably try it again, and sooner or later he'll find out. He'll notice that things show up in the house that aren't accounted for in the budget, or he'll see a statement from your secret bank account, or one of your friends will carelessly say something about it when he's around, etc. I found out about some of my ex-wife's secret finances when she wasn't home one day, I got the mail, and found a credit card bill for an account I knew nothing about. If the preconditions on the question are that you're not going to tell him the truth (and you're not going to get a divorce), I think the only realistic answer is that there is no way of keeping this secret with a high probability of success.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a3ac3834ecfdcdd0f6bcca73ae4e4620",
"text": "First: great job on getting it together. This is good for your family in any respect I can think of. This is a life long process and skill, but it will pay off for you and yours if you work on it. Your problem is that you don't seem to know where you money goes. You can't decide how whacky your expenses are until you know what they are. Looking at just your committed expenses and ignore the other stuff might be the problem here. You state that you feel you live modestly, but you need to be able to measure it completely to decide. I would suggest an online tool like mint.com (if you can get it in your country) because it will go back for 90 days and get transactions for you. If you primarily work in cash, this isn't helpful, but based on your credit card debt I am hoping not. (Although, a cash lifestyle would be good if you tend to overspend.) Take the time and sort your transactions into categories. Don't setup a budget, just sort them out. I like to limit the number of categories for clarity sake, especially to start. Don't get too crazy, and don't get too detailed at first. If you buy a magazine at the grocery store, just call it groceries. Once you know what you spend, then you can setup a budget for the categories. If somethings are important, create new categories. If one category is a problem, then break it down and find the specific issue. The key is that you budget not be more than you earn but also representative of what you spend. Follow up with mint every other day or every weekend so the categorization is a quick and easy process. Put it on your iPhone and do it at every lunch break. Share the information with your spouse and talk about it often.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "f69a7f2f8a1c722e5a19a4cc9862faeb",
"text": "You can fairly simply make a spreadsheet in your favorite spreadsheet application (or in Google Docs if you want portability). I like to make an overview page that shows how much I take in per month and what fixed bills come out of that, then break the remaining total into four to get a weekly budget. Then, I make one page per month with four columns (one per week), with each row being a category. Sum the categories at the bottom, and subtract from your weekly total: voila, a quick reference of how much you can spend that week without going over budget. I then make a page for each month that lists what I bought and how much I spent on it, so I can trace where my money's gone; the category total is just a summation of the items from that page that belong in that category. Once you have a system, stop checking your bank balance except to ensure your paycheck is going in alright. Use the spreadsheet to determine how much you can spend at any time. Then make sure you pay off everything on the card before the end of the month so you don't incur interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab2208969e49ffbce1072ac81bfff082",
"text": "\"Your heart is in the right place. Especially since they've got a kid. If you really want to help them, have the uncomfortable conversation with them that they need to have about money. Specifically, how to develop and stick to a budget. It is a painful, but valuable lesson for life. Depending on what type of relationship you have with them, you can approach it in different ways... just giving them friendly advice is perhaps the lightest \"\"touch\"\" you could have... but might not make the impression you need. If they are asking you for money, I would personally make it a condition that they work through their personal budget with you, and then start living within that budget. If you're lending money, it's not too much to ask to follow their accounts or finances so that you can see that they're on the right track. If you're a close enough friend, you could really walk them through it and help them to develop the habits of: estimating how much they will earn in a month estimating how much they should spend in a month, tracking how much they are actually spending, and comparing how much they actually earn with how much they actually spend. Doing this every month until they get out of the weeds. They should at least do it every 3 months when they're in good financial shape, but even then each month doesn't hurt. Setting them up with something like Mint.com (if they're in the US) would be a handy place to start. You can share the login information with them if they trust you... and then they can change it once whatever agreed-upon terms come around. It sounds weird, I know, but I have helped two friends out of credit-card debt this way. The hardest part is getting around the discomfort/taboo/shame of them knowing they need help and not wanting to accept it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "187d6926e20a28d2636f7193014e3bfa",
"text": "The Avalanche method does not work because most people don't have enough money to make an avalanche. If you somehow had a windfall that was greater or equal to your highest credit card balance, then by all means pay that one off. However, most people do not have that kind of situation. Instead they should use the debt snow ball method. They only have regular income that is typically much smaller then the balances. Another part of your plan that is especially troubling is that you are continuing to utilize credit cards. You need to cut them up, and stop using them. First of course save $1000 for a small emergency fund, the pay them off smallest to largest. Do a budget each and every month. Work an extra job or three. Any extra money that hubby brings in goes towards one of the credit cards. BTW you don't have a math problem you have a behavior problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d712e4318ff47ff4c92c5ddf4fa22d",
"text": "I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to do, but it sounds like you're trying to create a business expense for paying off your personal debt. If so - you cannot do that. It will constitute a tax fraud, and if you have additional partners in the LLC other than you and your spouse - it may also become an embezzlement issue. Re your edits: Or for example, can you create a tuition assistance program within your company and pay yourself out of that for the purposes of student loan money. Explicitly forbidden. Tuition assistance program cannot pay more than 5% of its benefits to owners. See IRS pub 15-B. You would think that if there was a way to just incorporate and make your debts pre-tax - everyone would be doing it, wouldn't you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c7179b41c1d08a2b507c2bc0e6835a8",
"text": "\"If my wife and I tried this, we'd call it grounds for divorce. However, I think most long term couples actually do this, and it is just a budget. It is common practice for two spouses to deposit money into a single checking account. All of the household expenses are then paid from that single account. Same as you describe: if I spend money from the joint checking that is less money available to my wife. Based on your dollar amount, I'd have to say great work on thinking about saving early on in life. I think though, if you are actually starting out, getting into the habit of saving a \"\"dime of every dollar\"\" would be more beneficial. At some point your income will increase, and when it does so should your savings. By \"\"paying yourself first\"\" your savings will keep pace with your spending and you will be a happier person when you income starts to fall again.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc26d4a800bea172012b60ec4364dd83",
"text": "Do a monthly budget, unique to each month, before the month begins, spend all of your money on paper. Use envelopes to help you keep track of how much you have left for things you buy throughout the month. Have separate envelopes for things like groceries, restaurants, clothing, entertainment. Put the amount of money for each category in cash in the envelope. Only spend the money out of the correct envelope and don't mix and mingle between envelopes. Pay in cash, with real money. Don't use credit or debit cards, it's proven you spend more when you are not paying with cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f4799662e6609d40e0197bf2d5d1714",
"text": "Other than the two answers (both of which recommend waiting until marriage to actually combine finances, and which I agree with), there's the general question: how does a couple choose to manage finances? In our marriage, it's me. I'm more numbers-minded than my spousal-unit. I'm also more a sticker for time. I work and spousal-unit does not. We had some good friends -- upon marriage, spouse1 felt like he should take on the role. He went on a several-week trip (leaving spouse2 at home), and upon returning home asked spouse2 about the late fees. Spouse2 was appalled. Spouse2 ended up keeping the job of managing household finances. There's enough pieces to the puzzle that it can be divided any way you choose -- any way that works for you and your spouse/virtual-spouse. One other point: talk about how to manage your money, before you marry. Dave Ramsey recommends a strict monthly budget. I like listening to Dave Ramsey, but we've never had a budget. Instead, we agreed during marriage counseling two things:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2c08bc875b91c7ae9d48feef6e07b0e",
"text": "First, talk to your husband about this. You really need to persuade him that you need to be saving, and get him to agree on how and how much. Second, if you husband is not good at saving, work on getting something set aside automatically - ideally deducted from a paycheck or transferred to a savings account automatically. If he is the kind of person who might dip into that account, try to make it a place he can't withdraw from Third, get some advice, possibly training, on budgeting. Buy a book, take a video course: even start by watching some TV shows on getting out of debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b13393accc83213c5973089554b85d3",
"text": "\"A budget that you both agree on is a great goal. X% to charity, y% to savings, $z a month to a reserve for house repairs, and so on. Your SO is likely to agree with this, especially if you say it like this: I know you're concerned that I might want to give too much to charity. Why don't we go through the numbers and work out a cap on what I can give away each year? Like, x% of our gross income or y% of our disposable income? Work out x and y in advance so you say real percentages in this \"\"meeting request\"\", but be prepared to actually end up at a different x and y later. Perhaps even suggest an x and y that are a little lower than you would really wish for. If your SO thinks you earn half what you really do, then mental math if you say 5% will lead to half what you want to donate, but don't worry about that at the moment. That could even work in your favour if you've already said you want to give $5000 (or $50,000) a year and mental math with the percentage leads your SO to $2500 (or $25,000), (s)he might think \"\"yes, if we have this meeting I can rein in that crazy generosity.\"\" Make sure your budget is complete. You don't want your SO worrying that if the furnace wears out or the roof needs to be replaced, the money won't be there because you gave it away. Show how these contingencies, and your retirement, will all be taken care of. Show how much you are setting aside to spend on vacations, and so on. That will make it clear that there is room to give to those who are not as fortunate as you. If your SO's motivations are only worry that there won't be money when it's needed, you will not only get permission to donate, you'll get a happier SO. (For those who don't know how this can happen, I knew a woman just like this. The only income she believed they had was her husband's pension. He had several overseas companies and significant royalty income, but she never accounted for that when talking of what they could afford. Her mental image of their income was perhaps a quarter of what it really was, leading to more than one fight about whether they could take a trip, or give a gift, that she thought was too extravagant. For her own happiness I wish he had gone through the budget with her in detail.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d5e4e1d4f9c4dd063b662a9cce9501c",
"text": "\"If you ask ten different couples what they do, depending on a variety of factors, you'll get anywhere between two and ten different answers. One personal finance blogger that I read swears by the fact that he and his wife keep their finances totally separate. His wife has her own retirement account, he has his. His wife has her own checking and savings, he has his. They pay fifty-fifty for expenses and each buy their own \"\"toys\"\" from their own accounts. He views this as valuable for allowing them to have their own personal finance styles, as his wife is a very conservative investor and he is more generous. My spouse and I have mostly combined finances, and view all of our money as joint (even though there are a smattering of accounts between us with just one name on them as holdovers from before we were married). Almost all of our purchasing decisions except regular groceries are joint. I couldn't imagine it any other way. It leaves us both comfortable with our financial situation and forces us to be on the same page with regards to our lifestyle decisions. There's also the ideological view that since we believe marriage united us, we try to live that out. That's just us, though. We don't want to force it on others. Some couples find a balance between joint accounts and his and her fun money stashes. You might find yet another arrangement that works for you, such as the one you already described. What's going to be important is that you realize that all couples have the same six basic arguments, finances being one of them. The trick is in how you disagree. If you can respectfully and thoughtfully discuss your finances together to find the way that has the least friction for you, you're doing well. Some amount of friction is not just normal, it's almost guaranteed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2da9c6cb77c6d43459a25ff16f45edfb",
"text": "I'll chime in and say that my wife and I thought this was a really dumb idea, until we tried it. I was keeping track of everything in my checkbook ledger, but having the physical money in the envelopes really does work! We thought it would be more hassle than it's worth, and there were hiccups the first month or two, but in the end we both agree this is what started our movement towards responsible money management and debt reduction. We have the following Categories: Obviously, ymmv, but the point is to take any categories in your budget that are hard to budget for, as they vary from month to month, and just set aside an amount form your paycheck, in cash, for each one of those categories in an envelope. What I've noticed is that by putting the money aside up front, it's MUCH easier to stick to the budget. We'll often shuffle money around in the envelopes if priorities change for a particular month as well, so rather than taking money away from an extra payment on a debt or our planned savings transfer, which would have been our default action pre-envelopes, we can just move $XX from Date Night into Groceries if we have to, hence, planning out how we'll spend our money, budgeting, has gotten a LOT easier since adopting this system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a6ec7acfcc016deaeedb5070d157e0a",
"text": "I won't answer in a detailed manner because most people at this site like answers with certain bias' on these questions, like pool resources always relative to which partner is asking. If you follow the above advice, you are hoping things work out. Great! What if they don't? It will be very messy. Unlike most of my peers, I did NOT follow the above advice and had a very clean exit with both of us feeling very good (and no lawyers got involved either; win-win for both of us with all the money we saved). One assumption people make is the person with the lowest income has the strictest limits. This is not always true; I grew up in poverty, but have a very high income and detest financial waste. I can live on about €12,000 a year and even though my partner made a little less, my partner liked to spend. Counter intuitive, right? I was supposed to be the spender because I had a large income, but I wasn't. Also, think about an example with food - sharing expenses. Is it fair for one partner to split whey protein if one partner consumes it, but the other doesn't (answer: in my view, no)? My advice based on your questions: Balance the frugal vs. spendthrift mentality rather than income ratios. If you're both frugal, then focus on income ratios - but one may be more frugal than the other and the thought of spending €300 a month on housing is just insane to a person like me, whereas to most it's too little. Are you both exactly the same with this mentality - and be honest? Common costs that you both agree on can be easily split 50-50 and you can often benefit from economies of scale (like internet, cell phone). Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. This is so healthy for a relationship. My partner and I split and we both still really love each other. We're headed in different directions, but we did not want to end bitterly. What you wrote is part of why we ended so well; we both were very independent financially. Kids are going to be a challenge because they come with expenses that partners don't always agree on. What do you and her think of childcare, for instance? You really want to know all this upfront; again a frugal vs. spendthrift mindset could cause some big tensions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84466d66769008712af907a5df6f9568",
"text": "open a bank account under the business name and put tthe money in there You can probably simply speak to the banker about having a business account and setting aside money for taxes,, etc no rocket science there just don't lie about your income is most important, or many It's not how much you make its how much you deposit in a bank, that's the first thing the tax man might look at IMO",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b00d5dcf10f152d53d9c1cfa7843c559
|
Does exposure to financials in corporate bond funds make sense?
|
[
{
"docid": "c89162b7fe8c56145e5885660c778ff7",
"text": "One reason a lot of bond ETFs like Financials are because of how financial companies work. They usually have amazing cash flows due to deposits and fees and therefore have little risk associated with paying their debts in the short term. The rest of VCSH contains companies with low default risk and good cash flow generation as well: This is of course the objective of VCSH: Banks themselves issue a lot of bonds to raise cash to lend for other purposes. Banks are intermediary and help make funds liquid for investors and spenders. Hope that helped answer your question. If not comment below and I'll try to adjust the answer to be more complete.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ce9537c51f2349ef3b2921eeeec8a658",
"text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e52a20a503c5917948f5d9acba2fc78",
"text": "Disclaimer: I don't work in the finance industry, and simply took a few classes in corporate finance and management during my undergrad. It depends on what type of investing you're talking about. If you're talking about building a portfolio of securities, then CAPM is the basis for most valuation models. Generally, CAPM will have you discount based on your best available risk-free rate (usually t-bills or some other fixed income source with a reliable backer). Even after your valuation, the basic theory of risk management for an investment portfolio is still to maintain a diverse basket of poorly correlated products. If you're talking about corporate finance where a firm is considering an investment such as a new project, then a determining a WACC and using it as a discount rate for your cash flow is a basic strategy. This is a basic strategy, but there are better ones depending on the specifics of the investment. This is where evaluating exposures is important. To hedge counterparty risk, you might discount by the estimated probability of non-payment or buy trade insurance. To hedge currency risk, you might buy forwards, options, or look into a money market hedge. To hedge political risks like repatriation or changes in tax laws or regulation you might buy political risk insurance. To hedge exposure to a particular commodity price, you can trade futures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e732648b31005f1d4e21e034a068d67",
"text": "There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c60786f10f4885a8bc26b9a2b5d3cf81",
"text": "They made an analysis of my readiness to assume a risk and found out that I am willing to take only small risks. I would agree with this analysis. You really should rethink this part. At your age, you have no rational reason whatsoever to be risk-averse! Especially since any reasonably diversified fund already eliminates actual risk (of complete loss) almost completely. Going into bonds and real estate does not reduce risk at all; it reduces volatility - and you're giving up a lot of money merely to avoid seeing your investments go down temporarily(!)",
"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": "e06513ea6682d175b2be99e6ede27c69",
"text": "The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe. However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way. Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves. Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets. There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns. Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d365b4480c725511653ad90c95226c7f",
"text": "1-2 years is very short-term. If you know you will need the money in that timeframe and cannot risk losing money because of a stock market correction, you should stay away from equities (stocks). A short-term bond fund (like VBISX) will pay around 1%, maybe a bit more, and only has a small amount of risk. Money Market funds are practically risk-free (technically speaking they can lose money, but it's extremely rare) but rates of return are dismal. It's hard to get bigger returns without taking on more risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37b0fdd14f1ecb48f606ed0d33f56806",
"text": "\"I'll tackle number 2. It's one which many academics dismissed as an impossibility; after all, how could that be rational? What could cause negative yields (ie effectively giving an entity cash and paying for the privilege of doing so!) is something we've experiencing currently: fear. Back in the financial crisis, investors were actually paying to store their cash in treasuries, because of the fear that if they left it with a bank they might not get it back. What about the FDIC Insurance you may ask quite logically. The problem is that we're talking about massive entities, like pension funds, asset managers, corporations, who normally would store some (think millions - billions) in cash and cash equivalents (bank accounts, money market funds, short-term paper), they really aren't protected. So, they do what turns out to be the rational thing, which is pay a premium on \"\"safe assets\"\" ie US Gov't bills to guarantee you get most of your money back. The same thing is currently happening with German front-end paper, as Europeans pull their money out of banks/periphery assets and search for safety. Hope that helped.\"",
"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": "b30bd7a9465bf07e15893e3617051654",
"text": "\"I am doing an assignment for a finance class, and I am writing a recommendation for a specific capital structure. One of the concerns brought up by the \"\"board of directors\"\" was interest coverage, so in my addressing that topic in my report, I want to compare to competitors. The interest coverage ratio under this capital structure that I'm choosing is 11.8 and the two competitors we are given information on are Company A (who has an interest coverage ratio of 6.67) and Company B (who has an interest coverage ratio of 11.25). It seems good, but my concern is that I may be missing something, as Company A is similar in size (in terms of sales) to the company I am writing a report for while Company B has ~50 times more sales than the company I am writing a report for. Advice, things to consider as I move forward?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f2c218ee74e0d3479758e528248143a",
"text": "\"Google Finance and Yahoo! Finance would be a couple of sites you could use to look at rather broad market information. This would include the major US stock markets like the Dow, Nasdaq, S & P 500 though also bond yields, gold and oil can also be useful as depending on which area one works the specifics of what are important could vary. If you were working at a well-known bond firm, I'd suspect that various bond benchmarks are likely to be known and watched rather than stock indices. Something else to consider here is what constitutes a \"\"finance practitioner\"\" as I'd imagine several accountants and actuaries may not watch the market yet there could be several software developers working at hedge funds that do so that it isn't just a case of what kind of work but also what does the company do.\"",
"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": "77f2fb35a2beff9e1f1c485393fb6fd7",
"text": "\"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c93f7fb9d94277d6f31585b9f7c8b4e",
"text": "\"You're missing the point here. The goal of ratings firms is **not** to accurately price debt. That's the market's job. The goal of ratings companies is to evaluate the ability of the company to service their debt instrument, much like how the goal of a public accounting firm is to assure that a company's financial statements follow GAAP. The article implicitly makes the assertion that Aaa rated securities have pretty low default rates; it's mainly only the area of CDO backed securities that there's a large disconnect between the rating and default risk. While this does raise questions about the worthiness of these ratings and the way they went about modeling and rationalizing them, it hardly suggests that they are \"\"wrong over 50% of the time.\"\" As a side note, why not make it against the law for mutual funds to have rules that allow them to only hold Aaa rated securities? These funds that demand high credit ratings are only contributing to the conflict of interest by essentially \"\"asking for it.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b817ec03dd15fd9541bdb6b536bf2bd",
"text": "\"not sure if I will help or just spread more gibberish but maybe the first concept I'd look at is risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is discerning your ability to risk losing money to get better results. So you know the saying \"\"the higher the risk the higher the reward\"\"? The way most people are going to operate is somewhere on the midpoint of behavior - not doing the riskiest thing, but not doing the very most cautious thing either. So given that concept, some investments will be more appealing given different economic scenarios. Typically stocks are going to reward your investment a little more aggressively than a treasury bond if the economy is humming along. This drives prices of treasuries lower, stock yields higher. In a crappy economy, people want to move their money into conservative investments like a treasury bond. Bond prices rise while stock prices dip. If you google 'correlations between the market prices of stocks and the market prices of Treasury bonds' you will find plenty of helpful and hopefully not too convoluted articles a la http://finance.zacks.com/correlation-treasuries-stocks-10871.html Don't get freaked out by graphs, the graphs are just a way to put into a picture that correlation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
57efa8c8c6ffa963a1b760860d29e0fe
|
Do I have to pay tax on money I earn as a tutor?
|
[
{
"docid": "2b3eae8565bbfc9e4a70a77b947e42ef",
"text": "You would be required to report it as self-employment income and pay tax accordingly. It's up to you to keep proper records (like a receipt book, for example), especially when it comes to cash. If you can't prove exactly how much you earned and the government decides to guess the amount for you then you won't like the outcome!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "263429fb2da879af84a0686ceef092e0",
"text": "There is a moral and legal obligation to file the earnings. Not doing so is tax fraud. You should keep a ledger or some record of your earnings, helpful guidelines here. Records are required by the CRA: According to the law, your responsibilities include: (source) You could get in trouble if one of your pupils report the expense at their tax filing, and the CRA finds no matching statement on your filing report. Tutoring are eligible for tax credit in case of disability: Tutoring services that are supplementary to the primary education of a person with a learning disability or an impairment in mental functions, and paid to a person in the business of providing these services to individuals who are not related to the person. A medical practitioner must certify in writing that these services are necessary. So if one of your pupils fall under that provision, you will get tax trouble sooner or later. Bottom line: start making records now, and report your earnings. Collect your tax as any lawful citizen is required to.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1a47af56d5b794e7f58cdb39117264bd",
"text": "\"TL;DR - my understanding of the rules is that if you are required to register for GST (earning more than $75k per annum), you would be required to pay GST on these items. To clarify firstly: taxable income, and goods and services tax, are two different things. Any income you receive needs to be considered for income tax purposes - whether or not it ends up being taxable income would be too much to go into here, but generally you would take your expenses, and any deductions, away from your income to arrive at what would generally be the taxable amount. An accountant will help you do this. Income tax is paid by anyone who earns income over the tax free threshold. By contrast, goods and services tax is a tax paid by business (of which you are running one). Of course, this is passed on to the consumer, but it's the business that remits the payment to the tax office. However, GST isn't required to be charged and paid in all cases: The key in your situation is first determining whether you need to register for GST (or whether indeed you already have). If you earn less than $75,000 per year - no need to register. If you do earn more than that through your business, or you have registered anyway, then the next question is whether your items are GST-free. The ATO says that \"\"some education courses [and] course materials\"\" are GST-free. Whether this applies to you or not I'm obviously not going to be able to comment on, so I would advise getting an accountant's advice on this (or at the very least, call the ATO or browse their legal database). Thirdly, are your sales connected with Australia? The ATO says that \"\"A sale of something other than goods or property is connected with Australia if ... the thing is done in Australia [or] the seller makes the sale through a business they carry on in Australia\"\". Both of these appear to be true in your case. So in summary: if you are required to register for GST, you would be required to pay GST on these items. I am not a financial advisor or a tax accountant and this is not financial advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78d14bc8caa8db04ea078cca3001630b",
"text": "You only need to report INCOME to the IRS. Money which you are paying to a landlord on behalf of someone else is not income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "907ee8efbd546f4e8397b7965b65f39d",
"text": "Eeeeeeh... No, you don't. In Canada, and pretty much any country with common sense they will rarely charge you for income made outside its borders. In the worst case scenario you're taxed on income deemed resulting from investment (stocks, bonds, etc.), but the general rule is... You don't pay taxes on income made abroad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a7a6ec1313cb73c04f7e0e1ba797cb9",
"text": "House rent allowance:7500 House Rent can be tax free to the extent [less of] Medical allowance : 800 Can be tax free, if you provide medical bills. Conveyance Allowance : 1250 Is tax free. Apart from this, if you invest in any of the tax saving instruments, i.e. Specified Fixed Deposits, NSC, PPF, EPF, Tution Fees, ELSS, Home Loan Principal etc, you can get upto Rs 150,000 deductions. Additional Rs 50,000 if you invest into NPS. If you have a home loan, upto Rs 200,000 in interest can be deducted. So essentially if you invest rightly you need not pay any tax on the current salary, apart from the Rs 200 professional tax deducted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edb022684a0cdbb1fa16f2d3b1266ee4",
"text": "Generally, prize money is miscellaneous income, reported on line 21 of your 1040 and not subject to self employment tax. See IRS publication 525 for more details; under 'Prizes and Awards', they give an example of winning a photography contest. Now, there are a couple of exceptions. If your main occupation is participating in contests such as this - or you do it sufficiently that it could be considered such - then it may be considered something you should pay self employment taxes on. If it's your first one - you're fine. Also, it would have to be something that doesn't look like work for me to be confident it's self employment income. I'm not sure that winning the Netflix prize for improving on their algorithm by 10% wouldn't run the risk of being considered sort of employment. I'm not a tax advisor, but in that case I would hire one to be sure. I could imagine companies abusing 'prizes' otherwise to get out of paying employment taxes...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70a52b4c0f3fde7f782b50da8799b4a9",
"text": "\"If a country had a genuine completely flat income tax system, then it wouldn't matter who paid the tax since it doesn't depend on the employee's other income. Since not many countries run this, it doesn't really make sense for the employee to \"\"take the burden\"\" of the tax, as opposed to merely doing the administration and paying the (probable) amount of tax at payroll, leaving the employee to use their personal tax calculation to correct the payment if necessary. Your prospective employer is probably saying that your tax calculation in Singapore is so simple they can do it for you. They may or may not need to know a lot of information about you in order to do this calculation, depending what the Singapore tax authorities say. If you're not a Singapore national, they may or may not be relying on bilateral tax agreements with your country to assert that you won't have to pay any further tax on the income in your own country. It's possible they're merely asserting that you won't owe anything else in Singapore, and in fact you will have taxes to report (even if it's just reporting to your home tax authority that you've already paid the tax). Still, for a foreign worker a guarantee you won't have to deal with the local tax authority is a good thing to have even if that's all it is. Since there doesn't appear to be any specific allowance for \"\"tax free money\"\" in the Singapore tax system, it looks like what you have here is \"\"just\"\" the employer agreeing to do something that will normally result in the correct tax being paid in your behalf. This isn't uncommon, but it's also not exactly what you asked for. And in particular if you have two jobs in Singapore then they can't both be doing this, since tax is not flat. The example calculation includes varying tax rates for the first X amount of income that (I assume without checking) are per person, not per employment. Joe's answer has the link. In practice in the UK (for example), there are plenty of UK nationals working in the UK who don't need to do a full tax return and whose tax is collected entirely at source (between PAYE and deductions on bank interest and suchlike). In this sense the employer is required by law to take the responsibility for doing the admin and making the tax payments to HMRC. Note that a UK employer doesn't need to know your circumstances in detail to make the correct payroll deductions: all they need is a so-called \"\"tax code\"\", which is calculated by HMRC and communicated to the employer, and which basically encodes how much they can pay you at zero rate before the various tax rate tiers kick in. That's all the employer needs to know here for the typical employee: they don't need to know precisely what credits and liabilities resulted in the figure. However, these employers still don't offer empoyees a net salary (that is, they don't take on the tax burden), because different employees will have different tax codes, which the employer would in effect be cancelling out by offering to pay two people the same net salary regardless of their individual circumstances. The indications seem to be that the same applies in Singapore: this offer is really a net salary subject to certain assumptions (the main one being that you have no other tax liabilities in Singapore). If you're a Singapore millionaire taking that job for fun, you might find that the employer doesn't/can't take on your non-standard tax liability on this marginal income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5bbbf00ed8e7b0c39a7ece90572ef56",
"text": "I know that if you make more, you pay more, but do those who have more, not make more, pay higher income tax? In general, no. In most locales, income tax is based on income, not on wealth. I am retired. I have little income but a fair amount of wealth. I play very little income tax. (But I do pay other kinds of taxes.) Here's a scenario. 2 people of average wealth with similar situations have the same job with equal pay. After 5 years, their situations haven't changed and they still earn equal pay, but now one has $40,000 in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because he makes the same? In most locales, you pay income tax on everything that is counted as income. Your salary is income. In some cases, earned interest is income. But aside from the earned interest from your bank accounts, neither the $40,000 nor the $9,000 is income. Your huge mansion isn't income. Your expensive car isn't income. The huge amount of land you own isn't income. The pricey artwork on your walls isn't income. You don't pay income tax on any of these, but your local may impose other taxes on these (such as property tax, etc.) [Note: consult the tax laws of your specific locale if you want to know details.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52bbf6d8b11c8eb0599a79d269d0ce5",
"text": "Pennsylvania is one of the states that divide the land up in to thousands of jurisdictions all of which have the power to tax. Where you live (or work) is located in either a county, city, township or borough. They can tax you based on either your income, your property. You can also be taxed by the school district which can encompass multiple jurisdictions. You should get local tax help to make sure that all the appropriate taxes are being covered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9e79e98b9e15e397c3b4d83efcfb487",
"text": "Since you have already paid tax to the Government of Uk, no tax will be levied on the money earned outside India. As per the Income tax act, any income received in India in all cases is taxable irrespective of the tax payer's residential status. A NRI after receiving income from outside India cannot be taxed as income because of remittance of such income to India.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47c9c8dbbbfb64b9537ec5a36e9cc724",
"text": "\"What theyre fishing for is whether the money was earned in the U.S. It's essentially an interest shelter, and/or avoiding double taxation. They're saying if you keep income you make outside the US in a bank inside the US, the US thanks you for storing your foreign money here and doesn't tax the interest (but the nation where you earned that income might). There is no question that the AirBNB income is \"\"connected with a US trade or business\"\". So your next question is whether the fraction of interest earned from that income can be broken out, or whether IRS requires you to declare all the interest from that account. Honestly given the amount of tax at stake, it may not be worth your time researching. Now since you seem to be a resident nonresident alien, it seems apparent that whatever economic value you are creating to earn your salary, is being performed in the United States. If this is for an American company and wages paid in USD, no question, that's a US trade or business. But what if it's for a Swedish company running on Swedish servers, serving Swedes and paid in Kroner to a Swedish bank which you then transfer to your US bank? Does it matter if your boots are on sovereign US soil? This is a complex question, and some countries (UK) say \"\"if your boots are in our nation, it is trade/income in our nation\"\"... Others (CA) do not. This is probably a separate question to search or ask. To be clear, the fact that your days as a teacher or trainee do not count toward residency, is a separate question from whether your salary as same counts as US income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e11ac463150afa914242e4ad3e1b1a96",
"text": "It's income. It's almost certainly subject to income tax. As miscellaneous income, if nothing else. (That's what hobby income usually falls under.) If you kept careful records of the cost of developing the app, you might be able to offset those against the income... again, as with hobby income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6851122f48b8fd967b1633e2c0bdc341",
"text": "Do you get cash (or a deposit into your bank account) of your PhD stipend and then you immediately send the university a check to pay the tuition fee (which might be more than the cash you get from the University)? Or does the University simply keep the stipend money, transferring it from one pocket to another in essence, and say, OK, you have paid your tuition except for $X that you still owe us? Or does the university grant you a tuition waiver as part of your assistantship and reports this as income on Form 1099-MISC? In all of these cases, the money reported on Form 1099-MISC is not taxable income to you, and it is neither subject to Self-Employment tax (basically, Social Security and Medicare tax -- both the employee's share and the employer's share) nor to (Federal) income tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d8cc97b73642c71c5a8013e9f2f0629",
"text": "\"In the UK it all comes down to what HMRC will allow you to charge without taxing you on the \"\"rent profit\"\" and not hitting capital gain tax when you sell the house, it may not all count as your \"\"main home\"\" if some is rented out. (http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/ is a good place to ask this type of questions in the uk)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4972d02c5cb0088e316851b3f20b2dee",
"text": "Tax is due in India as you offered services from India. So whether the International Client pays via Credit Card, Bank Transfer, Paypal or any other means is not relevant. Even if the International Client pays you in a account outside India; it is still taxable in India.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c31cc642447b46b462ffbae99e40bcf",
"text": "\"As you are earning an income by working in India, you are required to pay tax in India. If you contract is of freelance, then the income earned by you has to be self declared and taxes paid accordingly. There are some expenses one can claim, a CA should be able to guide you. Not sure why the Swiss comapny is paying taxes?. Are they depositing this with Income Tax, India, do they have a TAN Number. If yes, then you don't need to pay tax. But you need to get a statement from your company showing the tax paid on behalf of you. You can also verify the tax paid on your behalf via \"\"http://incometaxindia.gov.in/26ASTaxCreditStatement.asp\"\" you cna register. Alternatively if you have a Bank Account in India with a PAN card on their records, most Banks provide a link to directly see\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5f1334385fc75e5e8f2eed244434bbdd
|
Does reading financial statements (quarterly or annual reports) really help investing?
|
[
{
"docid": "707b61081a6c7cf8ec495fe81bd48389",
"text": "Reading financial statements is important, in the sense that it gives you a picture of whether revenues and profits are growing or shrinking, and what management thinks the future will look like. The challenge is, there are firms that make computers read filings for them and inform their trading strategy. If the computer thinks the stock price is below the growth model, it's likely to bid the stock up. And since it's automated it's moving it faster than you can open your web browser. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? In a sense, no. The only sensible trading strategy is to assume you hold things for as long as their fundamentals exceed market value. Financial statements are where you find those fundamentals. So you should read them. But your question is, is it worth it for investors? My answer is no; the market generally factors information in quickly and efficiently. You're better off sticking to passive mutual funds than trying to trade. The better reason to learn to read these filings is to get a better sense of your employer, potential employers, competitors and even suppliers. Knowing what your margins are, what your suppliers margins and acquisitions are, and what they're planning can inform your own decision making.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa1a7d4b336581a906ccd15d29d2bb78",
"text": "\"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: \"\"Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?\"\" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "808551695901e548c97822ec9534711a",
"text": "\"Wow, I cannot believe this is a question. Of course reading the 10Ks and 10Qs from the SEC are incredibly beneficial. Especially if you are a follower of the investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Shelby Davis. Personally I only read the 10K's I copy the pertinent numbers over to my spreadsheets so I can compare multiple companies that I am invested in. I'm sure there are easier ways to obtain the data. I'm a particular user of the discounted free cash flow methodology and buying/selling in thirds. I feel like management that says what they are going to do and does it (over a period of years) is something that cannot be underestimated in investing. yes, there are slipups, but those tend to be well documented in the 10Qs. I totally disagree in the efficient market stuff. I tend to love using methodologies like Hewitt Heisermans \"\" It's Earnings that Count\"\" you cannot do his power-staircase without digging into the 10Qs. by using his methodology I have several 5 baggers over the last 5 years and I'm confident that I'll have more. I think it is an interesting factoid as well that the books most recommended for investing in stocks on Amazon all advocate reading and getting information from 10Ks. The other book to read is Peter Lynch's one-up-wall-street. The fact is money manager's hands are tied when it comes to investing, especially in small companies and learning over the last 6 years how to invest on my own has given me that much more of my investing money back rather than paying it to some money manager doing more trades than they should to get commision fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fae6e10244ab2001ef24d545aa83d56c",
"text": "I agree with @STATMATT. Financial statements are the only thing that Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger read. To answer your question though, really depends on what type of investor you are and what information are you trying to extract. It is essential for the Buffett style (buy & hold). But if you are a short term or technical investor then I don't see it being of much value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7121e311d13a3c87cf892058a9572ee",
"text": "\"Yes, especially if you are a value investor. The importance and relevance of financial statements depends on the company. IMO, the statements of a troubled \"\"too big to fail\"\" bank like Citibank or Bank of America are meaningless. In other industries, the statements will help you distinguish the best performers -- if you understand the industry. A great retail example was Bed, Bath and Beyond vs. Linens and Things. Externally, the stores appeared identical -- they carried the same product and even offered the same discounts. Looking at the books would have revealed that Linens and Things carried an enormous amount of debt that fueled rapid growth... debt that killed the company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9db0b7887a063e58b947c0f70c752d4",
"text": "Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24",
"text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1596afff2f3ee3401968378a590116e6",
"text": "Somewhat. The balance sheet will include liabilities which as Michael Kjörling points out would tell you the totals for the debt which would often be loans or bonds depending on one's preferred terminology. However, if the company's loan was shorter than the length of the quarter, then it may not necessarily be reported is something to point out as the data is accurate for a specific point in time only. My suggestion is that if you have a particular company that you want to review that you take a look at the SEC filing in full which would have a better breakdown of everything in terms of assets, liabilities, etc. than the a summary page. http://investor.apple.com/ would be where you could find a link to the 10-Q that has a better breakdown though it does appear that Apple doesn't have any bonds outstanding. There are some companies that may have little debt due to being so profitable in their areas of business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae5328d39b4595fdc2abf63ff7bdfb46",
"text": "I wouldn't read into the title too much. We live in a world of click bait. I'd agree with your statement, that really the point is that reading fiction makes you better at understanding human emotion which makes you better at investing because the market is very emotional by nature. Of course I'd say if this is your position I'd be taking some long straddle positions on options leading up to conference meetings on big companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Tesla and calling it a day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "951b9b0fce84b385eb005e407056b51a",
"text": "Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679be605950dfa4c18994648a37208cd",
"text": "So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7c1e38777f47d8af6a0319a751443f2a",
"text": "If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging). The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly. The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what. If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect. It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now. But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows. (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5797d874e38e3192b00a936376f037f",
"text": "There have been studies which show that Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) underperforms Lump Sum Investing (LSI). Vanguard, in particular, has published one such study. Of course, reading about advice in a study is one thing; acting on that advice can be something else entirely. We rolled over my wife's 401(k) to an IRA back in early 2007 and just did it as a lump sum. You know what happened after that. But our horizon was 25+ years at that time, so we didn't lose too much sleep over it (we haven't sold or gone to cash, either).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f06a650f6e12c270ce086e21c87761e3",
"text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "915e6ec3c328a2e4c2e8506fe7bc97cb",
"text": "\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "318bf7c07d2181281ba642478fc8debb",
"text": "I agree with the other answers, but I want to give a slightly different perspective. I believe that a lot of people are smart enough to beat the market, but that it takes a lot more dedication, patience, and self-control than they think. Before Warren Buffett buys a stock, he has read the quarterly reports for years, has personally met with management, has visited facilities, etc. If you aren't willing to do that kind of analysis for every stock you buy, then I think that you are doing little more than gambling. If you are just using the information that everyone else has, then you'll get the returns that everyone else gets (if you're lucky).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68ad2d6cc4afb29c1b2f1b4a8f0d38f1",
"text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d240360b1c1b4b83fe2006d90b610409",
"text": "It would be very unusual (and very erroneous) to have a company's stock be included in the Long Term Investments on the balance sheet. It would cause divergent feedback loops which would create unrepresentative financial documents and stock prices. That's how your question would be interpreted if true. This is not the case. Stock prices are never mentioned on the financial documents. The stock price you hear being reported is information provided by parties who are not reporting as part of the company. The financial documents are provided by the company. They will be audited internally and externally to make sure that they can be presented to the market. Stock prices are quoted and arbitrated by brokers at the stock exchange or equivalent service. They are negotiated and the latest sale tells you what it has sold for. What price this has been reported never works its way onto the financial document. So what use are stock prices are for those within the company? The stock price is very useful for guessing how much money they can raise by issuing stock or buying back stock. Raising money is important for expansion of the company or to procure money for when avenues of debt are not optimal; buying back stock is important if major shareholders want more control of the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc",
"text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcd11b792061a47b8e47a4bb91c17281",
"text": "You are always best off investing in things you understand. If you have a deep understanding of the aeronautical industry, say, you are a Vice President at Boeing and have been working at Boeing for 40 years, then that would be a reason for investing in that sector: because you may be able to better evaluate different companies in that sector. If you are a novice in the sector, or just have an amateur interest in it, then it may not be a good idea, because your knowledge may not be sufficient to give you much of an advantage. Before focusing on one investment of any type, industry sector based, or otherwise, you want to ask yourself: am I an expert in this subject? The answer to that question will have a big impact on your success.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dfab1dff1a17e46782a9950d224a453f
|
Why is routing number called ABA/ABN number?
|
[
{
"docid": "db71fa8d0f72907d3345cfdd48549a9b",
"text": "The ABA number you speak of is more accurately called the Routing Transit Number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number A routing transit number (RTN) is a nine digit bank code, used in the United States, which appears on the bottom of negotiable instruments such as checks identifying the financial institution on which it was drawn. This code was designed to facilitate the sorting, bundling, and shipment of paper checks back to the drawer's (check writer's) account. The RTN is also used by Federal Reserve Banks to process Fedwire funds transfers, and by the Automated Clearing House to process direct deposits, bill payments, and other such automated transfers. The RTN number is derived from the bank's transit number originated by the American Bankers Association, which designed it in 1910.[1] I am going to assume that the euphemistic ABA Number has been shortened by whoever told you about it and called it the ABN. Perhaps American Bank Number. Either way, the technical term is RTN. Perhaps a comment or editor can straighten me out about the ABN. There is an international number known as the SWIFT number that serves the same purpose worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9362 ISO 9362 (also known as SWIFT-BIC, BIC code, SWIFT ID or SWIFT code) defines a standard format of Business Identifier Codes approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It is a unique identification code for both financial and non-financial institutions.[1] The acronym SWIFT stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. When assigned to a non-financial institution, the code may also be known as a Business Entity Identifier or BEI. These codes are used when transferring money between banks, particularly for international wire transfers, and also for the exchange of other messages between banks. The codes can sometimes be found on account statements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3eedfd995588585b7ebb1205710f32f",
"text": "With number of Banks increasing every country at some point in time adopted an Identification code. In US these are called ABA number because they are allocated by American Bankers Association, in UK Sort Codes ... like wise for other countries. See list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_code In some countries the numbers are given by Central Bank. To enable internationl payments, the SWIFT body apart from message formats, allocated a SWIFT BIC [Bank identification Code] so that Banks can be globally identified. Currently IBAN being adopted in Europe & Australia to identify an Account [at a Bank] Uniquely across globe. In essence these number help uniquely identify a Location/Bank/Branch. The clearing house route the payments or collection instruments to the correct Bank on the basis of this number.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ee8811b2d81aab7d77767fffc1331f20",
"text": "Emergency funds, by the name it implies that they should be available on hand at a very short notice if needed. Conservation of principal (not withstanding inflation, but rather in absolute terms) is also a very important criteria of any kind of account that you will use to save the emergency fund. I would suggest the following breakup. The number in brackets signifies the amount of per month expenses that you can keep in that account. = total 6 months living expenses",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18665dc5fa080e4469ed3808a1f01234",
"text": "Most transactions that the bank performs for you are electronic ACH transactions, so the costs to them are minimal in the long run. Most banks do it now to keep up with the competition. Almost every bank does it now, so they have to do it to attract new business and keep existing customers. Also, the more you rely on the bank and use them to pay bills, the more they learn about you over time and can use that data in overall marketing plans. It's easier for them to record it into their system if it is all electronic to begin with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e9eec0415e239f7e4adcd09bd0376bc",
"text": "It's to legally allow you to buy/ sell securities on behalf of others and to give advice. Different tests allow different things. 66 is for the basics: stocks and bonds etc. I believe 31 is for insurance or something. I'm not too sure the specifics I'm probably wrong about which test is which though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4c0bb00fb1fc446618ca073a74febfd",
"text": "Basically speaking, Japanese bank accounts are identified by three numbers: The four digit Bank number. For example 0005 is Mitsubishi Tokyo UFJ Bank The three digit Branch number. For example 001 = Main branch for Mitsubishi. The account number. This is your account number. Your ATM Cash Card and passbook will have these numbers on it in the format XXXX-YYYY-ZZZZZZZZ. When you use an ATM to send money to someone else (like your landlord) you but in these three numbers or use the search feature instead for the first two. This works the same whether you are talking about Mitsubishi, Mizuho, etc. The only thing to note is that while real banks use locations for the branch number (i.e. Ueno branch, Marunouchi branch, etc.), online only banks like Sony Bank (MoneyKit), Rakuten Bank, SBi, etc. use fake locations like colors, etc. This doesn't matter much though. Japan Post bank is technically not a bank and uses a totally different numbering system, though recently they have come up with a strange formula to convert your JP Bank account number into a normal bank account number so you can send payments to it as shown above). All of this is basically for domestic transfers only, though. If you want to transfer money internationally, there are two basic ways: The official way. Go to your bank overseas, and give them the SWIFT code and account code for your bank (likely the branch code will be necessary as well). The problem here is that they will likely charge a high fee for sending the money, and your bank in Japan may also charge a high fee for receiving it! (In addition to any currency conversion fees). A second problem is that only the very major banks even have SWIFT codes. Use a money transfer service that can handle both Japan and your other country. For example, you can use 2 Paypal accounts (Only in the direction of From Japan To overseas, though!), or you can use something like MoneyBookers Either way IBAN is a European standard and isn't used in Japan. If you just want to spend some money in Japan, the most convenient way is probably a foreign visa debit card. Or, you can use a foreign ATM card in Japan to withdraw cash and then deposit it into your Japanese account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5e5e9132730459384f7e230754c00f4",
"text": "\"this is purely psychological. most people are absolutely terrible at keeping track of their finances. to the point where they will use multiple separate accounts for different types of spending or savings goals. when the average person tells the banker they want an account for the money they are saving, they get handed a \"\"savings account\"\" and don't bother to question how it is different from a checking account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61b85cead5d73582e622371bb6e9a673",
"text": "It's safe. You give people those numbers every time you write a check. If a check is forged, and doesn't have your signature on it, the bank has to return the money to you; they get it back from the other bank, who takes whatever action it deems necessary against the forger. They've been doing this for a few hundred years, remember.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a603e76dd7cf5e499482b89caca47328",
"text": "First, they don't have an obligation to provide a service for a non-customer. In theory, the could even refuse this service to account holders if that was their business model, although in practice that would almost surely be too large of a turn-off to be commercially feasible. Non-account holders aren't paying fees or providing capital to the bank, so the bank really has no incentive or obligation to tie up tellers serving them. Maybe as importantly, they have a legitimate business reason in this case as stated. The fact that the bill passed whatever test the teller did does not, of course, ensure that the bill is real. They may (or may not) subject it to additional tests later that might be more conclusive. Making you have an account helps ensure that, in the event they do test it and it fails, that (a) they know who you are in case the Secret Service wants to find you, and (b) they can recover their losses by debiting your account by the $100. This isn't foolproof since any number of bad things could still happen (identity theft, closing account before they do additional tests, bill passing later tests, etc.), but it does give them some measure of protection.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250776fdc7608cf2ad194f982553b759",
"text": "\"In Europe in most of the countries there is also a thing called ACH. In UK there is a thing called BACS and in other countires there are other things. Essentially every country has what is called a \"\"Low value Net Settlement System\"\" that is used to transfer funds between accounts of different banks. In US there is rounting number, in UK there is a Sort Code, in Indonesia there is a sort code. Essentially a Bank Identifier that is issued by the Governing body within respective countires. Certian identifiers like SWIFT BIC [Bank Identification Code] are Unique across world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b80c35e9f45bc2e2b566652dd85fa4dd",
"text": "Typically 'current' means the account from which you do your day-to-day banking (also called 'checking') and 'savings' is an interest earning account, from which you might occasionally take money. However...you can actually attach these labels (for ATM purposes) to any account you want. They don't have to be your actual checking or savings accounts. I have 'current' attached to my personal account and 'savings' on the account I hold jointly with my wife. They are just labels you attach to different accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91d1802b16c0cb4b7467d2137e0e4800",
"text": "Probably because large chains can absorb the loss from fraud better than small stores do. Thus, small stores want to ensure that the person holding the card is the same as the name on the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4547ba8882ca5083e07856480f94e0ec",
"text": "For the clearing house, only the routing number and the check amount [which gets encoded before its presented to clearing] is important. The check numbers were put in as a fraud prevention mechanism to ensure that one check was only presented once and that it was issued to a particular account. Typically issued in sequence. So as your account is new, the bank may have a mechanism to verify the checks [maybe based on amount and other info]. If your volume of check issuing increases, they may start putting in a check number to better track.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd0bb20077a932bc52f28e8f88679e29",
"text": "\"I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. I think you're asking this: \"\"A US bank receives a wire transfer from a Chinese bank. How does the US bank ensure there's any money in fact arriving before crediting the destination account?\"\" Well, the way wire transfers work is that the US bank would debit the senders' account with that US bank. So the US bank in fact transfers the money between two internal accounts: debit to the Chinese bank's account with that US bank and credit the destination customer account. If the Chinese bank doesn't have an account with the destination US bank - a third party intermediary is used that both banks have accounts with. Such third party will charge an additional fee (hence sometimes the wire transfer fees are slightly higher than you initially know when sending the money, the third party would debit from the transfer amount). \"\"Regular\"\" IBAN/ACH transfers work through regulatory channels that ensure integrity and essentially use a regulatory bank as that third party. But because they're done in batches and not on-line, they're much cheaper, and the accounting is for the whole batch and not each transfer separately. But batch processing means it will take a day or two of processing, while wire transfer takes hours at most.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d6484df1dd699dba84e32c627210e21",
"text": "Another explanation is that they keep your money three days to make money with it, because they can. The other reasons might have been valid 100 years ago, and no bank would voluntarily cut that down until forced by law. Example: In Europe, bank to bank transfers used to take three days, until a law forced them to give next day, and suddenly it was possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ec98223bf7d147a121185b9f03fae31",
"text": "\"There's something wrong with your story. The IBAN contiains two check digits, and the method used to compute them guarantees that any single digit error will be caught. So it's impossible that \"\"HSBC screwed up the last digit of my IBAN\"\" because if that were the case, the resulting IBAN would not be valid and be rejected by the computer when it was entered at your bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fa31bc1e67933188329a7f3d31e7b99",
"text": "Most bank accounts offer automatic bill pay as well. They don't rely on support from the bill you're paying, I think they basically just mail a check with your account number on it",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4dfb3b30932621589f5e504d3ac71821
|
First concrete steps for retirement planning when one partner is resistant
|
[
{
"docid": "2ac0c962a8e0fc8964131ea3692c84ea",
"text": "\"I would suggest you do three things: If you do all three of these, the time will come when \"\"2 months off to go to Italy this winter and ride bikes through wine country\"\" is something you both want to do, can afford to do, and have arranged your lives to make it feasible. Or whatever wow-cool thing you might dream of. Buying a vacation property. Renovating an old house. The time may also come when you can take a chance on no income for 6 months to start a business that will give you more flexibility about when and where you work. Or when you can switch from working for a pay cheque to volunteering somewhere all day every day. You (as a couple) will have the freedom to make those kinds of decisions if you have that safety net of long term savings, as long as you also have a strong and happy relationship because you didn't spend 40 years arguing about money and whether or not you can afford things.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c19bb8874dcaba8f6d3b4abbcf1dfde0",
"text": "You can take a queue from any sales opportunity and position it in ways that will still appeal to someone who intends to continue working perpetually. Here are some of the points I would make: 401k matching funds are free money that you will have access to in ~20 years whether you retire or not. Long-term savings that grow in the stock market turn into residual income that will add to your standard of living whether you retire or not. There are tax advantages to deferring income if you are in a high tax bracket now. You will have flexibility to withdraw that money in future years where you might have lower earnings. (For example, in a future year, you could take a sabbatical trip to Europe for a few months without pay and draw on your savings during that time that you are not making money.) Even if you don't invest in a 401k, you and max out HSA accounts if you are eligible, and position that as money for medical expenses. If you never have medical reasons to spend that money, you can still withdraw at retirement age like a 401k or IRA. (Though it gets taxed as income if not used for qualified medical purposes at retirement time.) With an unwilling partner, it's difficult to make a lot of progress, but if you have matching funds from your employer, do make sure that you are getting at least those for yourself. Ultimately if he doesn't want to save for himself, you should for yourself. There are no guarantees in life. If he dies or leaves, you must be prepared to take care of your own needs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90846e0811d0c4d2f377573d4dbf2330",
"text": "To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a87e909ce967530a0f83baa6241eedd0",
"text": "\"I can understand your nervousness being 40 and no retirement savings. Its understandable especially given your parents. Before going further, I would really recommend the books and seminars on Love and Respect. The subject matter is Christian based, but it based upon a lot of secular research from the University of Washington and some other colleges. It sounds like to me, this is more of a relationship issue than a money issue. For the first step I would focus on the positive. The biggest benefit you have is: Your husband is willing to work! Was he lazy, there would be a whole different set of issues. You should thank him for this. More positives are that you don't have any credit card debt, you only have one car payment (not two), and that you are paying additional payments on each. I'd prefer that you had no car payment. But your situation is not horrible. So how do you improve your situation? In my opinion getting your husband on board would be the first priority. Ask him if he would like to get the car paid off as fast as possible, or, building an emergency fund? Pick one of those to focus on, and do it together. Having an emergency fund of 3 to 6 months of expense is a necessary precursor to investing, anyway so you from the limited info in your post you are not ready to pour money into your 401K. Have you ever asked what his vision is for his family financially? Something like: \"\"Honey you care for us so wonderfully, what is your vision for me and our children? Where do you see us in 5, 10 and 20 years?\"\" I cannot stress enough how this is a relationship issue, not a math issue. While the problems manifests themselves in your balance sheet they are only a symptom. Attempting to cure the symptom will likely result in resentment for both of you. There is only one financial author that focuses on relationships and their effect on finances: Dave Ramsey. Pick up a copy of The Total Money Makeover, do something nice for him, and then ask him to read it. If he does, do something else nice for him and then ask him what he thinks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33314a31c8d305dd0a2bad1f94b05411",
"text": "I'd try to (gently) point out to your husband that what he thinks he wants to do now and what he might want to do in 20 or 30 years are not necessarily the same thing. When I was 40 I was thinking that I would work until I died. Now I'm 58 and have health problems and I'm counting down the days until I can retire. Even if your husband is absolutely certain that he will not change his mind about retiring in the next 20+ years, maybe something will happen that puts things beyond his control. Like medical problems, or simply getting too old to be able to work. Is he sure that he will be able to continue to put in 40 hour weeks when he's 80? 90? 100? Just because you put money away for retirement doesn't mean that you are required to retire. If you put money away, and when the time comes you don't want to retire, great! Now you can collect the profits on your investments in addition to collecting your salary and live very well. Or have a nice nest egg to leave to your children. Putting money away for retirement gives you options. Retirement doesn't necessarily mean sitting around the house doing nothing until you waste away and die of boredom. My parents were busier after they retired then when they were working. They spent a lot of time on charity work, visiting people in the hospital, working with their church, that sort of thing. Some people start businesses. As they have retirement income coming in, they don't have to worry about the business earning enough to provide a living, so they can do something they want to do because they think it's fun or contributes to society or whatever. Etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2e71b41f10542896093e9541bbff4e6",
"text": "Bringing your spouse on board a financial plan is key to success. The biggest part is to have a shared dream. Having retirement saving doesn't mean that you can't work. It does mean that you both will have some level of security as you age. Does your husband really want you to be impoverished when he dies? I doubt it, he probably just hasn't given it much thought. A strong nest-egg can help you after his is gone even if you are still working. My wife and I follow Dave Ramsey's baby steps. It has worked like a champ for us and can help you as well. You can look up his plan, most of the materials are free. A few highlights: So in short, don't worry about retirement until you two are out of debt. Once you two are out of debt then save for your retirement, kids college and pay off your home early. Building a shared dream with your husband is the best way to get him onboard. Talk about helping the kids, freedom to vacation, your parents struggle, whatever gets him to see the importance of having some savings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "13600689d517cc3f682b64709187c5e4",
"text": "Whatever you choose for a remedy (my first impulse is to suggest bankruptcy) you should protect your retirement plans. These are immune from most collection actions, the exception being govt debts (e.g. taxes) and student loans. The sad part is that the student loans won't go away except by paying them off. Miss one payment and it will hound you for 10 years. Bankruptcy will stop you from getting a home loan for only two years. Unless you have the discipline to live like a monk for a decade it sounds like you're headed for a train wreck. The kids will have to cut back to junior college or some other method of reducing costs and as hard as it sounds, don't cosign for any more student loans. Kids are more resilient than you think and they'll probably come up with their own solutions like scholarships, work study and off campus jobs. I hate to keep beating the bankruptcy horse but at least that way you could still keep your house and car. Otherwise you risk losing either or both from missed payments. I actually hope that you can avoid bankruptcy so I suggest first you talk to a financial adviser or bankruptcy attorney to see if this is in fact right for you. But if it's just the shame of the scarlet letter B then consider that pride doesn't keep a roof over your head or food in your belly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cab8a85705f3c03341cab69c7efa553e",
"text": "If you look at history, it shows that the more people predict corrections the less was the chance they came. That doesn't prove it stays so, though. 2017 is not any different than other years in the future: Independent of this, with less than ten years remaining until you need to draw from your money, it is a good idea to move away from high risk (and high gain); you will not have enough time to recover if it goes awry. There are different approaches, but you should slowly and continuously migrate your capital to less risky investments. Pick some good days and move 10% or 20% each time to low-risk, so that towards the end of the remaining time 90 or 100% are low or zero risk investments. Many investment banks and retirement funds offer dedicated funds for that, they are called 'Retirement 2020' or 'Retirement 2030'; they do exactly this 'slow and continuous moving over' for you; just pick the right one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d9d1d5cc25027082ca2f016cc8a94ae",
"text": "Others have made excellent suggestions; one thing I would add - and this cannot be understated - is to assess your risk tolerance. We tend to think of investing as a purely rational and financial decision, yet myself and so many others, when times get tough, make emotional decisions. Doing a risk tolerance test (as honestly as possible) will help you recognize what you can and can't handle. On top of that, consider how well you face adversity or celebrations in other areas of life; I've found many similarities in the ways that we handle a gain in our investments to the way we celebrate a raise (same thing with adversity). Once you know this, you can begin the process of elimination on funds. [Added: the point above this, does not consume a lot of time and could end up saving you a great deal of money and emotional agony, so it's well-worth it.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b287fe3e5c18c67590e241a102689ff",
"text": "\"1 - in most cases, the difference between filing joint or married filing single is close to zero. When there is a difference you're better off filing joint. 2 - The way the W4 works is based on how many allowances you claim. Unfortunately, even in the day of computers, it does not allow for a simple \"\"well my deduction are $xxx, don't tax that money.\"\" Each allowance is equal to one exemption, same as you get for being you, same as the wife gets, same as each kid. 3 people X $3800 = $11,400 you are telling the employer to take off the top before calculating your tax. She does this by using Circular E and is able to calculate your tax as you request. If one is in the 15% bracket, one more exemption changes the tax withheld by $570. So if you were going to owe $400 in April, one few exemption will have you overpay $170. i.e. in this 15% bracket, each exemption changes annual withholding by that $570. For most people, running the W4 numbers will get them very close, and only if they are getting back or owing over $500, will they even think of adjusting. 3 - My recently published Last Minute Tax Moves offers a number of interesting ideas to address this. The concept of grouping deductions in odd years is worth noting. 4 - I'm not sure what this means, 2 accounts each worth $5000 should grow at the same rate if invested the same. The time it makes sense to load one person's account first is if they have better matching. You say you are not sure what percent your wife's company matches. You need to change this. For both of your retirement plans you need to know every detail, exact way to maximize matching, expense ratios for the investments you choose, any other fees, etc. Knowledge is power, and all that. In What is an appropriate level of 401k fees or expenses in a typical plan? I go on to preach about how fees can wipe out any tax benefit over time. For any new investor, my first warning is always to understand what you are getting into. If you can't explain it to a friend, you shouldn't be in it. Edit - you first need to understand what choices are within the accounts. The 4% and 6% are in hindsight, right? These are not fixed returns. You should look at the choices and more heavily fund the account with the better selection. Deposit to her account at least to grab the match. As far as the longer term goals, see how the house purchase goes. Life has a way of sending you two kids and forcing you to tighten the budget. You may have other ideas in three years. (I have no P2P lending experience, by the way.) Last - many advise that separate finances are a bad path for a couple. It depends. Jane and I have separate check books, and every paycheck just keep enough to write small checks without worry, most of the money goes to the house account. Whatever works for you is what you should do. We've been happily married for most of the 17 years we've been married.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f32f7e7afc39af60c5c839369e3106a",
"text": "If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56468d9a818c8e7457e3f054891a5673",
"text": "I vote for Plan B: PLAN B: Put into 401 K whatever I have in April (will be less than max) and just pay the extra tax. This is path of least resistance and easy but expensive. This plan is the simplest and has the least moving parts. It will be over in April, is easily understood, and does not add extra risk to your life. That being said, the real plan is for next year: save for taxes along the way instead of getting hit with a big bang.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e661b4e1154b9542f9d63bc5d62bbb",
"text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "95256edb22555049c2e5d130e88e5287",
"text": "\"Get everything in writing. That includes ownership %, money in, money out, who is allowed to use the place, how much they need to pay the other partners, who pays for repairs, whether to provide 'friends and family' discounts, who is allowed to sell, what happens if someone dies, how is the mortgage set up, what to do if one of you becomes delinquent, etc. etc. etc. Money and friends don't mix. And that's mostly because people have different ideas in their head about what 'fair' means. Anything you don't have in writing, if it comes up in a disagreement, could cause a friendship-ending fight. Even if you are able to agree on every term and condition under the sun, there's still a problem - what if 5 years from now, someone decides that a certain clause isn't fair? Imagine one of you needs to move into the condo because your primary residence was pulled out from under you. They crash at the condo because they have no where else to go. You try to demand payment, but they lost their job. The agreement might say \"\"you must pay the partnership if you use the condo personally, at the standard monthly rate * # of days\"\". But what is the penalty clause - is everything under penalty of eviction, and forced sale of the condo and distribution of profits? Following through on such a penalty means the friendship would be over. You would feel guilty about doing it, and also about not doing it [at the same time, your other partner loses their job, and can't make 1/3rd of the mortgage payments anymore! They need the rent or the bank will foreclose on their house!] etc etc etc Even things like maintenance - are the 3 of you going to do it yourselves? Labour distributed how? Will anyone get a management fee? What about a referral fee for a new renter? Once you've thought of all possible circumstances and rules, and drafted it in writing, go talk to a lawyer, and maybe an accountant. There will be many things you won't have considered yet, and paying a few grand today will save you money and friends in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "401c061194dac9da8592747cd33c6a11",
"text": "With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69dd9dbb23a5fbb80ce41d7c0fa951cb",
"text": "\"Making these difficult portfolio decisions for you is the point of Target-Date Retirement Funds. You pick a date at which you're going to start needing to withdraw the money, and the company managing the fund slowly turns down the aggressiveness of the fund as the target date approaches. Typically you would pick the target date to be around, say, your 65th birthday. Many mutual fund companies offer a variety of funds to suit your needs. Your desire to never \"\"have to recover\"\" indicates that you have not yet done quite enough reading on the subject of investing. (Or possibly that your sources have been misleading you.) A basic understanding of investing includes the knowledge that markets go up and down, and that no portfolio will always go up. Some \"\"recovery\"\" will always be necessary; having a less aggressive portfolio will never shield you completely from losing money, it just makes loss less likely. The important thing is to only invest money that you can afford to lose in the short-term (with the understanding that you'll make it back in the long term). Money that you'll need in the short-term should be kept in the absolute safest investment vehicles, such as a savings account, a money market account, short-term certificates of deposit, or short-term US government bonds.\"",
"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": "9d80f72238439599b06de7da0a422228",
"text": "While the 55 exception noted by Joe and JB makes this less of a worry, it's worth noting that to retire early most people would need additional investments beyond a maxed out 401(k). As most people make more money later in life it is generally worth putting what you can in a 401(k) now and later when your savings would max out a 401(k) then you can start adding money to accounts that are not tax-advantaged. These additional funds can be used during the bridge period. Run the numbers yourself as these assumptions won't be true for all individuals, but this may be the piece you are missing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2154894e784fa76977d182c90058d00e",
"text": "Well this is not the best situation. Sorry to your friend. First off ROTHs are out, you need earned income. Secondly, I don't think the focus should be on retirement planning until there is again an earned income. Thirdly, this person is just in a bad spot. Lets assume that you can find some really good mutual funds, that consistently return 10% per year. At best this person can only pull out 10K per year without touching principle. At that income level, taxes are not much of a concern; not as much as surviving. If this person knows anything about investing, they know funds don't work like this. They could be down 5%, down 5%, up ~40% in three years to give an average of 10% return. Which of course further complicates matters. This person (IMO) should seek to start a different career. One that can cater to any long term issues this person has with pain/disability. The money could be used toward training/education in order to get money flowing again. That is not to say the full amount should be used for a BA in Russian Folk Literature, but some minimum training to get a career that starts earning real money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6246955a5a79502ccc4078f3ea9a86d2
|
Should I sell my individual stocks and buy a mutual fund
|
[
{
"docid": "cb02486f708ef67f0e8eb36f152e8792",
"text": "\"I would normally take a cautious, \"\"it depends\"\" approach to answering a question like this, but instead I'm going to give you a blunt opinionated answer based solely on what I would do: Even the crap. Get rid of them and get into the boring low fee mutual funds. I was in a similar situation a few years ago, almost. My retirement accounts were already in funds but my brokerage account was all individual stocks. I decided I didn't really know what I was doing despite being up by 30+% (I recognize that it was mostly due to the market itself being up, I was lucky basically). The way I cashed out was not to sell all at once. I just set up trailing stops on all of them and waited until they hit the stops. The basic idea was that if the market kept going up, the point at which they got sold also went up (it was like a 10% trail I think), and once things started to turn for that stock, they would sell automatically. Sure I sold some at very temporary dips so I missed out on some gains but that's always a risk with a trailing stop and I really didn't care at that point. If I had to do it again, I might forget all that and just sell all at once. But I feel a lot better not being in individual stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c96059fc6a8e0e1ff98cb3eb7b26c0b",
"text": "This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a4eda5d941ef9f38511d2d191b1803f8",
"text": "Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96d0479db259b1d1bbc57b467acf8cf2",
"text": "\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\"\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"\"as defined by theory.\"\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e487cb84b836a6cae29ce804ead9718c",
"text": "The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "514cb66269b47140c703c2ab852a8381",
"text": "You shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place. From New York Magazine, tweeted by Ezra Klein: New evidence for that reality comes from Goldman Sachs, via Bloomberg News. The investment bank analyzed the holdings of 854 funds with $2.1 trillion in equity positions. It found, first of all, that all those “sophisticated investors” would have been better off stashing their money in basic, hands-off index funds or mutual funds last year — both of them had higher average returns than hedge funds did. The average hedge fund returned 3 percent last year, versus 14 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500. Mutual funds do worse than index funds. Tangentially-related to the question of whether Wall Street types deserve their compensation packages is the yearly phenomenon in which actively managed mutual funds underperform the market. Between 2004 and 2008, 66.21% of domestic funds did worse than the S&P Composite 1500. In 2008, 64.23% underperformed. In other words, if you had a fund manager and his employees bringing their skill and knowledge to bear on your portfolio, you probably lost money as compared to the market as a whole. That's not to say you lost money in all cases. Just in most. The math is really simple on this one. Stock picking is fun, but undiversified and brings you competing with Wall Streeters with math Ph.Ds. and twenty-thousand-dollars-a-year Bloomberg terminals. What do you know about Apple's new iPhone that they don't? You should compare your emotional reaction to losing 40% in two days to your reaction to gaining 40% in two days... then compare both of those to losing 6% and gaining 6%, respectively. Picking stocks is not financially wise. Period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03d41dcf56859ae93fbc012bda231e5a",
"text": "As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b255e47ebb7c1a770f6272185f798254",
"text": "At a very high-level, the answer is yes, that's a good idea. For money that you want to invest on the scale of decades, putting money into a broad, market-based fund has historically given the best returns. Something like the Vanguard S&P 500 automatically gives you a diverse portfolio, with super low expenses. As it sounds like you understand, the near-term returns are volatile, and if you really think you might want this money in the next few years, then the stock market might not be the best choice. As a final note, as one of the comments mentioned, it makes sense to hold a broad, market-based fund for your IRA as well, if possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4235c550d5320e788346bb69d057967b",
"text": "\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e5bb05701d5b40caffbc5d98be9d723",
"text": "Domini offers such a fund. It might suit you, or it might include things you wish to avoid. I'm not judging your goals, but would suggest that it might be tough to find a fund that has the same values as you. If you choose individual stocks, you might have to do a lot of reading, and decide if it's all or none, i.e. if a company seems to do well, but somehow has an tiny portion in a sector you don't like, do you dismiss them? In the US, Costco, for example, is a warehouse club, and treats employees well. A fair wage, benefits, etc. But they have a liquor store at many locations. Absent the alcohol, would you research every one of their suppliers?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f010325a3fe156fe86ddd14c85278e5e",
"text": "\"Of course. \"\"Best\"\" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc.\"",
"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": "ebd2083d3c4dfd4d089cf638a06602e2",
"text": "One thing I would add to @littleadv (buy an ETF instead of doing your own) answer would be ensure that the dividend yield matches. Expense ratios aren't the only thing that eat you with mutual funds: the managers can hold on to a large percentage of the dividends that the stocks normally pay (for instance, if by holding onto the same stocks, you would normally receive 3% a year in dividends, but by having a mutual fund, you only receive .75%, that's an additional cost to you). If you tried to match the DJIA on your own, you would have an advantage of receiving the dividend yields on the stocks paying dividends. The downsides: distributing your investments to match and the costs of actual purchases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0",
"text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa381432a94c74fa8cc9b5ffd9ec4751",
"text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b6b44831c59cf35dcdf3a81a0cb0e62",
"text": "Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
caba2c893985ebca52094364692fd2f1
|
A guy scammed me, but he gave me a bank account number & routing number. Can I use that to take out what he owes me?
|
[
{
"docid": "b7d9a5849f2f445daea08fec938a24c5",
"text": "\"You're potentially in very deep water here. You don't know who this person is that you're dealing with. Before you'd even met him, he just gave you his banking info, seemingly without a second thought. You have no idea what the sources of his money are, so what happens if the money is stolen or otherwise illegal? If it is determined that you used any of that money, you'll be on the hook to return it, at the very least. Who knows what the legal ramifications are either? So it sounds like you began spending his money before you had any kind of written agreement in place? Doesn't that seem odd to you to have someone just so trusting as to not even ask for that? Was the source of the email about the $2500 from PayPal, or from him or his advisor? PayPal always sends you a notice directly when funds are received into your account, and even if they were going to put a temporary hold on them for whatever reason (sometimes they do that), it would still show up in your account. I would HIGHLY (can I be more emphatic?) advise you not to go anywhere NEAR his bank account until or unless you can absolutely verify who he is, where his money comes from, and what the situation is. If you start dipping into his account, whether you think you're somehow entitled to the money or not, he could cry foul and have you arrested for theft. This is a very odd situation, and for someone who says he's normally cautious and skeptical, you sure let your guard down here when you started spending his money without making any serious effort to confirm his bona fides. Just because he passes himself off as smart and the \"\"doctor type\"\" doesn't mean squat. The very best scammers can do that (ever see the movie \"\"Catch Me If You Can\"\", based on a true story?), so you have no basis for knowing he's anything at all. I am thoroughly confused as to why you'd just willfully start using his money without knowing anything about him. That's deeply disconcerting, because you've opened yourself up to a world of potential criminal and civil liability if this situation goes south. If this guy was giving you money as an investment in your business and you instead used some of that money for your own personal expenses then you could land in very serious trouble for co-mingling of funds. Even if he told you it was okay, it doesn't sound like there's anything in writing, so he could just as easily deny giving you permission to use the money that way and have you charged with embezzlement. You need to step back, take a deep breath, stop using his money, and contact a lawyer for advice. Every attorney will give you a free consultation, and you need to protect yourself here. Be careful, my friend. If this makes you suspicious then you need to listen to that voice in your head and find a way to get out of this situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ba706c8c818d2b2b72005061275a4ff",
"text": "\"OK, reading between the lines here it looks like the services offered by your company are of an \"\"adult\"\" (possibly illegal?) nature and that this individual has actually paid you in full for the services rendered up to this point. The wrinkle here is that you say that you've been offered large cash \"\"gifts\"\" in return for unspecified future favours, but that your client hasn't provided a real Paypal account to do so. When you pressed him on it, he sent a fake email and invented a \"\"financial adviser\"\" to fob you off, then hasn't contacted you since. It's pretty clear that he hasn't got any intention of making these payments to you. What you're now proposing to do is to use his known banking details to collect money to cover those verbal promises. In pretty much every part of the world, that's a crime. Without a written agreement to use that payment method for those promises, he could easily call the police and have you arrested for theft of funds. The further wrinkle is that his actions (claiming to have made payment via paypal, forged email headers, etc) strongly suggest that this individual is involved in cyber-crime and may well have used a fake bank account to pay for your initial services. The bottom line here is that you need real legal advice, from an actual lawyer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77fda8f5bd8dd1eda7d0df6eb4da9478",
"text": "What legal way can I take what I am owed from this guy? The legal ways are for this guy to transfer you the money or give you instructions that will allow you to get the money. Alternatively you would need to file a civil suite to recover the funds. What illegal way do people use this info if they had it? I don't want to get in trouble, but I'm just curious because you always hear how easy it is. There are quite a few illegal ways. I don't think this is the right forum to discuss this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db3869d3bbe9694441d0f24d4c98a15b",
"text": "\"As long as there is nothing more to this story you aren't sharing, you can expect those bills you paid to come back (you will have to pay them again later). You can be pretty certain that the name he gave you was fake, and that the bank account you paid your bills with was not his. I would not try to do anything at all with the information he gave you because first it is not his, and second your name is already tied to this bank account via your utility bills. In other words that would be illegal and you are already on the list of suspects. I would say that if you don't call the police they probably won't call you. The police often times do not even waste their time when somebody's light bill was paid with fraudulent financial information or whatever. I have actually seen similar situations play out a number of times and the police have never gotten involved. Disclaimer: I probably don't live where you live, and I'm not an attorney. But I do know what I am talking about so here's my advice (I know you didn't ask for advice but you probably might benefit from it). Let that money go, sometimes people get you. Take it as a lesson and move on. If you do end up having to have contact with the police and you don't already know, they will lie to you and try to trick you into acting in a way that is not in your self interest. But then you kind of look guilty if you won't even talk to them, and in this case you did not do anything illegal. So if I was you I would probably just think of where I might be incriminating myself by telling the truth, if there were any parts of my story that would raise any flags, and think of how I would smooth those out ahead of time. Also for your personal information you do not need to have a sophisticated understanding of computers to do anything you described, if you are familiar with operating a web browser you can do all types of stuff with Paypal. Most people that give off the vibe \"\"criminal\"\" are not going to be able to make any money conning people and would probably have given it up before they got to you. The information you have is not like the most valuable stuff ever but somebody that knew what they were doing could use it to take money out of your account, and if they had that and then could get a few other pieces they could really mess up your life. So that's part of why they say to be careful, any one piece is maybe not so valuable but if you are loose with everything you will probably have a shitty few weeks at some points in the future. \"\"no aa\"\" lol\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9436059cc8d42a2266be9bde9f4ef66c",
"text": "\"You're not focusing in the right place and neither is anyone else on this thread because this isn't about the guy owning you money... This is about you not having enough money to pay your rent. If rent wasn't due and the utility bills weren't piling up, you wouldn't be trying to justify taking money out of someone else's account. So let's triage this. Your #1 problem isn't hunting down Dr. Deadbeat's wallet. So put a pin in that for now and get to the real deal. Getting rent paid. Right? OK, you said he called \"\"regarding a business I have\"\". It's great that you have your own business. Are you also employed elsewhere? If you are, then you really should simply go to your employer and tell them you are in financial distress. Tell them that right now you can't cover your rent or bills and you want to know if they can help, i.e. give you an advance from your paycheck, do a withdrawal/loan from a retirement savings that's in your employee benefits package, etc... They will HELP YOU because it's in their best interest as much as it is in yours. Foregoing that, consider these thoughts... If you were to go your grandparents telling them what you told all of us here, and ask them the same \"\"do you think it's ok to...\"\", they would say something close to \"\"Absolutely DO NOT touch someone else bank account EVER! It doesn't matter what information you have, how you got it, or what you think they owe you. Do NOT touch it. There's a legal system that will help you get it from them if they truly do owe it to you.\"\" I guarantee you this, withdrawing funds from an account on which you are NOT an authorized signatory is both financial theft as well as identity theft. Bonus if you do it on a computer, because you'd then be facing criminal charges that go beyond your specific legal district, i.e. you'd face criminal charges on a national level. If convicted, odds are you'd be sentenced within the penal guidelines of the Netherlands 1983 Financial Penalties Act (FPA). Ergo, you would have much much much less money in the very near future, which would feel like an eternal walk through the Hell of the court system. Ultimately, over your lifetime you would be exponentially poorer than you may think you are now. I strongly urge you to rebrand this \"\"financial loss\"\" as \"\"Tuition at the School of Hard Knocks\"\". There's one last thing... the train jumps the tracks for me during your story... This guy called you? Right?... (raised eyebrow) What kind of business do you \"\"have\"\"? The sense of desperation and naiveté in your urgent need for money to pay rent. The fact that you are accepting payment for services by conducting a bank transfer specifically from your clients account directly toward your own utility bills is a big red flag. Bypassing business accounting and using revenue for personal finances isn't legitimate business practices. Plus you are doing it by using the bank information of brand new client who is a TOTAL stranger. Now consider fact that this total stranger was so exceedingly generous to someone from whom he wanted personal services to be rendered. Those all tell me that he's doing something he wants the other person to do for him and he doesn't want anyone else to know. The fact that he's being so benevolent like a 'sugar daddy' tells me that he feels guilty for having someone do what he's asking them to do. Perceived financial superiority is the smoothest of smooth power tools that predators and abusers have in their bag. For instance, an outlandish financial promise is probably the easiest way to target someone who is vulnerable; and then seduce them into being their victim. Redirecting your focus on how much better life will be once your problem is solved by this cash rather than focusing on the fact that they're taking advantage of you. Offering to pay rates that are dramatically excessive is a way of buying a clean conscious, because he's doing something that will \"\"rescue you\"\" from a crisis. The final nail in the coffin for me was that he left so abruptly and your implied instinct suggesting his reason was a lie. It sounds like he got scared or ashamed of his actions and ran out. It paints a picture that this was sex-for-money Good luck to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0df4c9f2930e72408863d2d65f19c3d4",
"text": "A routing number and account number are on the bottom of every check. If anybody who ever handled your checks or even saw your checks could just withdraw as much money as they wanted, the whole banking system would need to be reworked. In short, just having that info is not enough. Not legally.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7b379bedf230127771cc0de462510532",
"text": "This is the information required to wire money into your account from abroad. They would only need the account number and the ABA (routing) number to withdraw, and it is printed on every check you give.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3179e94f6575f62b120ad585ad7631fc",
"text": "\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "338231cbc70b8a243b50a393e02af534",
"text": "\"Here we go again! Why, oh why, would someone just open a bank account in your name with that much money for no good reason? Unless there's a very rich relative in your family tree, this can not come to a good ending. Besides, if this was money being left to you by someone as part of an inheritance, you'd hear from attorneys from the estate. Notwithstanding everything @NickR posted about the details of what makes it suspicious, ask yourself why a banker would contact you by email about an account with this much money in it. The bank would, at the very least, send you a registered/certified letter on official stationery. So what happens here is when you give them your banking information, whoever it is that's doing this will clean out your account, and that's for starters. They will ask for enough information to steal your identity too, and if you have good credit, that'll be gone in a heartbeat. The best scams (meaning the most successful ones) always appeal to peoples' greed, using large amounts of money that just miraculously belong to the victim, if only they'd give a little information to \"\"transfer\"\" the money. Worse yet, most of these scams will come up with some kind of \"\"fee\"\", \"\"tax\"\" or other expense that you have to pre-pay in order to make the transfer happen, so this just adds insult to injury when you find out (the hard way!) you've been scammed. DO NOT reply to the email you received or, if you already have, don't send any more responses. If they think they may have you on the hook then they won't stop trying, and it will become very messy very quickly. THIS IS NOT REAL MONEY! It isn't yours, it doesn't really exist, and all it will do is come to no good end if you go any further with it. Stay safe, my friend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d878d4ce304911a419232aaea456523",
"text": "Definitely a scam. Don't call him or do anything. Stay calm, there is no damage done yet. I met someone online three weeks ago. ... Left his wallet, debit card, credit cards, drivers license, etc. in the room In the entire world its only you he can bank upon ... someone whom hes met online just few weeks ago; there are no relatives, friends !!! why would the hotel manager Fed-Ex or UPS the items to my home address ... and not to his own address? Upon receipt, the engineer will give me his password to the Bank of America account so he can access his account Why doesn't he have internet? I am supposed to call him in the next hour or so and let him know if I will be doing this tomorrow. Don't call. Don't reply. The $150 is just a starter bait to see if one is gullible enough to take it and then there is more and more by different ways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5acb983eea291394cd7c2527da68dd04",
"text": "Call your bank and inquire if they send out the kinds of notices like the one you received. Don't call the number in the message, because if it is a scam, you're calling the scammers themselves, more than likely. Be very cautious about this situation, and if your bank is local then it might not hurt to pay a visit to a local branch to talk to someone in person. Print out the message(s) you receive to show them and let their fraud division look into it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aaf70524fa96219a7e613e2ad496396",
"text": "Someone online asking for your bank account info never has your best interests at heart. They can send you a check and while it may take a while to really clear, they can't use it to suck money out of your account. Be very cautious.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e10f9fb1ebe25140c06de0de01657db",
"text": "He has my bank account info, and I just want to know where I stand legally. Legally you can't keep the money. It would either go back to the originator or to Government unclaimed department. I got a bunch of missed calls from an unknown number and a really unprofessional email from a guy who supposedly worked for UNICEF saying I had 4 hours until I am suppose to be visited by police and that there was nowhere I could run to. These are common tactics employed to ensure you take some action and transfer the real money somewhere. Do not succumb to such tactics. The money is still in my account I have not touched it. Advise your Bank immediately that there is this deposit into your account that is not your's. Let the bank take appropriate action. Do not authorize Bank to debit your account. The max you can do is authorize the bank to reverse this transaction. The best is stick to statement that said transaction is not yours and Bank is free to do what is right. There is a small difference and very important. If you authorize bank to debit, you have initiated a payment. So if the original payment were revered by originator bank, you are left short of money. However if your instructions are very clear, that this specific transaction can be reversed, you cannot be additionally debited if this transaction is reversed. He has my bank account info, Depending on how easy / difficult, my suggestion would be monitor this account closely, best is if you can close it out and open a new one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e23c472316d0d2fdc6ead02d2b4c46e1",
"text": "Keep in mind that in order to fund your online casino account, you either had to provide credit/debit card info, or you had to give them your bank account number band routing number already. Now, assuming you've seen no fraudulent activity on your account(s) since then, and it was you who initiated the contact with them, what they're asking for is not totally unreasonable, nor is it all that unusual. MANY companies require you to provide account/routing info to do financial business with them, which doesn't automatically equate to nefarious purposes, so don't let yourself go down that rabbit hole unless there's some other serious red flag to the situation which you haven't shared with us. It is a bit odd they'd send you a check for a portion of the winnings, but maybe that's to demonstrate good faith on their part as to why they need you to provide them information to send the remainder of your winnings. That being said, the suggestion to open a bank account solely for purposes of receiving your winnings is a good one. I would go a step further and, once the transfer is made, go to the bank in person and withdraw it in cash. Then you can deposit it into your regular bank account without there being any possible connection between the two, just in case you decide to indulge your fears about this. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d5890e675f59e1fbb5cf3627c912696",
"text": "The only way someone can take money out of your account using just your sort code and account number is if you set up a direct debit to pay them (or someone pretending to be you sets up the direct debit). Even with Paperless DD's this can take some time. Anyone who can process debit card transactions can take money from your account if they have your debit card number, expiry date and cvv number. Direct debits do not have an expiry date so they are normally used for paying automatic regular long term bills (like rent, rates, electricity etc). Note, anyone with an ordinary bank account can pay money into account, using your sort code and account number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d5b2fbe25a7e017d381403558ff5054",
"text": "\"If it makes you feel any better, I now bank with a credit union. These WF assholes called me one day to tell me that someone had tried to withdraw $500 from my account and that I needed to sign up for a more secure account, of course with a $16 monthly charge. So I did what anybody would do... went to the bank and ask questions right? After I got there and mention the problem they told me that nothing was wrong with my account, that no transactions were attempted and even if they did attempt them and were canceled they would still show up but they didn't. Few minutes later I got another call from that guy and he was telling me that the problem was taken care of and that I didn't need to go to the bank. After that I was just suspicious. Basically what it came down to was that somebody was trying to set me up for accounts that I didn't ask for just so he can get promoted at my expense. They gave me a opportunity to report him but I didn't because I knew him personally, he was one of my \"\"friends\"\" and at the time he had two kids. I didn't want him to lose his job. I told him that what he did was completely fucked up and that you don't do that to people outside of WF. That same day I withdrew all my money. I still remember cutting the conversation short after WF tried to convince me all kinds of ways not to do that. I been with a Credit Union about 3 years now and so far so good.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb31aa53139708b7c3827e7e98a67dc2",
"text": "\"As others have noted, US law says that if you have over half the bill, it's worth the full value, under half is worth nothing. I presume if it is very close to half, if even careful measurements show that you have 50.5%, you'll have difficulty cashing it in, precisely because the government and the banking system aren't going to allow themselves to be easily fooled by someone cutting bills in half and then trying to redeem both halves. I've seen several comments on here about how you'd explain to the bank how so many bills were cut in half. What if you just told them the truth? Not the part about killing someone, of course, but tell them that you made a deal, neither of you wanted to bother with complex contracts and having to go to court if the other side didn't pay up, so your buddy cut all the bills in half, etc. As you now have both halves and they clearly have the same serial number, this no real evidence of fraud. Okay, this is technically illegal -- 18 US Code Section 333, \"\"Whoever mutilates, CUTS, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.\"\" But you didn't do it, the other guy did. I presume the point of this law is to say that you can't get a hold of currency belonging to someone else and mutilate it so as to make it worthless. As he's now given you both halves, I doubt anyone would bother to track him down and prosecute him. Just BTW, while checking up on the details of the law, I stumbled across 18 USC 336, which says that it's illegal to write a check for less than $1, with penalties of 6 months in prison. I just got a check from AT&T for 15 cents for one of those class action suits where the lawyers get $100 million and the victims get 15 cents each. Apparently that was illegal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0032a751ea184ad652de18d6dacd66d",
"text": "\"I would call the bank and ask how the person is on the account. If they are an owner, or are an authorized user, or what type of owner they are, etc. If the bank makes the distinction between \"\"user\"\" and \"\"owner\"\" then most likely, your funds are not able to be seized. If they are a joint owner, then, typically, 100% of the money is yours and 100% of the money is theirs and either of you could withdraw all the money, close the account, or have the money seized as part of a legal action.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63cd33d7c01cb17aa1b8d17a2cd0739d",
"text": "If you can provide evidence that you are the person who opened the account (which may be as simple as providing your signature, since this isn't really different from asking for a bank check or inter-bank transfer or ATM-network transfer), there should be no problem. Contact your bank and ask them what information they need to provide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f293c3173d07543b8ffd67b7f3a5569",
"text": "The typical scam is that they overpay you - 'accidentially', or for some obscure reason they claim, and they ask you to wire the extra money either back or to someone else. Because you wire it, that money is gone for sure. Then they undo the original transaction (or it turns out it was fake anyway), and you end up with a loss. Maybe he claims that he wants to buy some more stuff, and the fees are high, so he sends you all the payments in one amount, and you pay the other sellers from it, something like that. There are honest nigerians though, actually most of them. Either way, the real problem is that the original payment is fake. Whichever way it comes to you, you need to make sure that it cannot be reversed or declared invalid after you think you have it. Wire transfer is the only way I know that is not reversible. Bank transfers are reversible; don't think you have it just because it arrives in your bank account. Talk to your bank about what all can happen. If you make the deal, when you send the bike, think about insuring it (and make him pay for that too). That way, you are out of any loss risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a96543e87a7d692090fe7441ce7b12c7",
"text": "I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
569e16491eae3083f9bf8d7803b400e3
|
Effect of Job Change on In-Progress Mortgage Application
|
[
{
"docid": "ea175beccdb5817a985138b4c2c23c18",
"text": "Best advice is to ask your lender. That being said, if you are changing jobs, but keeping the same type of job you are usually ok and if the loan was approved before, it would still be approved. If you switch from W-2 to 1099 or vice-versa, permanent to contract, switch industries (software dev to accountant), or make less money there is a strong risk of the loan being declined.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b07c7636d56c874eee129e2b74e5253e",
"text": "I recommend you ask this question to a qualified mortgage broker. We just closed on our first house. My wife & I have had several years of stable jobs, good credit scores, and a small side business with 1040 Schedule-C income... and we were surprised by the overwhelming amount of documentation we needed for the loan. For example, we had 3 checks deposited to our bank account for $37.95. We had to provide copies of the checks, deposit slip and a letter explaining the deposit. One reason we might have had so much trouble: the mortgage broker we selected sold our loan to a very picky lender. On the plus side, we obtained a competitive rate with extremely low closing costs on a 30 year fixed mortgage. However, I can't imagine the headaches we would've incurred if one of us were changing jobs to 1099 income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ba1580c6771f6b4c05e53e0699b7fc3",
"text": "I just closed on a refi last week Thursday. The app went to the lender mid to late May. The lender called my employer for an employment verification on the Monday before closing. I would wait till after the loan funds to change jobs. FWIW, we signed on Thursday afternoon, escrow had to FedEx the originals to the lender on Friday, lender should have received it on Monday, we are still waiting to fund. I expect the loan to fund no later than tomorrow.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cc17ea9c00357c6358a5b88c815d6641",
"text": "This is at the bottom of my list of concerns, as both an employee and an employee. When hiring, its because I have work that needs to be done. I want to get someone in as quickly as possible, so I really don't care about holidays. Holiday pay also doesn't come out of my budget, so that doesn't enter in the decision. As a employee, if I'm unemployed I want to start as soon as possible. If switching jobs, I'm going to get paid for the holiday at one job or another, so it really doesn't matter. The last time I changed employers, I started the second week of January. That was more driven by moving concerns than anything else.",
"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": "57fcf3bb238da6e515ecdbe2d1cad81b",
"text": "\"As a former consumer credit counselor, who worked with struggling homeowners and first time homebuyers I would argue that it is a mistake for lenders to rely on gross income and assumptions on what an applicant spends their income on. I think lenders do this because they believe it is efficient and may not understand the long term ramifications for the stakeholders, e.g. the borrower, the lender, the servicer, the investor, the broker, the taxpayer, the marshall, the foreclosure lawyers etc. Or lenders do know the impact of a superficial mortgage screening, and intentionally want to enrich themselves in the short term while harming other stakeholders in the long term. Developing a budget that reflects what a person can realistically spend on their mortgage takes much longer than signing up for a Rocket mortgage. I would say an hour minimum for the first appointment to get a baseline, and at least two follow up appointments to make adustments soon after or whenever a borrower's financial situation changes dramatically. Credit counselors factor in all of the factors mentioned above, i.e. take home pay, future pay vs current pay, the ability to adjust deductions, seasonal expenses, multiple sources of income and their frequency, debt load etc. Budgets are always fluctuating, but when it is done right by a qualified professional the result is a much more accurate financial picture. The consequences for not doing this type of old-school due diligence, or for willfully choosing to skip it, are varied. First off, mortgages will be given to homeowners who should never have qualified in the first place, and likewise denied to homeowners who should qualify. This will result in market distortion and this distortion was a primary contributor to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis and the wave of foreclosures that came with it. Another consequence is the stripping of wealth from minority communities since they are often targeted by the most unscrupulous of lenders. Additionally, the securitization of mortgages based on poor diligence at the loan officer level means loan portfolio ratings are questionable, investors will lose money, and small banks who are heavily invested will fail as they did in the past. Depending on the federal enforcement of Dodd Frank Act, the taxpayers may or may not have to pick up the bill from a bailout of a big mortgage bank that was \"\"too big to fail,\"\" via higher taxes, lost jobs, lost homes, and other negative externalities that were not accounted for by the loan officer, or willfully ignored. Lastly, borrowers also have a responsibility to provide accurate financial information, which they don't always do. Unfortunately, in a capitalistic society where property is commoditized instead of communal, there is always mistrust, competition, the fear that you will be left behind, or the desire to get ahead. This could incentivize cheating by either the, borrower, the broker/lender, or both in this example e.g. no-doc negative amatorizing loans. This is just one of many other negative externalities. So the only true fix would be a switch to communal land ownership. In the interim, I would push for universal borrower access to low cost consumer credit counselors and a change in loan officer training and incentive structure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe71733a101a6794a0f35456fd068aa7",
"text": "My possible new job requires me to do dfast and ccar among others. A few questions 1) My background is public accounting and tax. I noted that these jobs requires experience from public firms. My past experience has nothing to do with banking. Any reasons? I have been reading up dfast in the past week and it seems they trust me to pick up fast. Another job ad from another bank indicates the same thing. 2) What type of job this is under? I tried risk analyst but quite a lot of times the results are quite different from what my job is. 3) What is the job outlook? My eventual plan is to a more data analyst role and/or job opportunities in EU. Currently in EA/SEA market. 4) Any programming language should I learn to speed up data extraction? I will be learning either python/r. And will surface 3 do? My current laptop is not working and the repair shop indicates the costs of repairing doesnt worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f63a2ebb0d599a7f156513c061b8228",
"text": "\"(I'm a bit surprised that nobody talked about the impact of multiple inquiries on a loan, since OP is concerned with credit building. Probably an answer as opposed to a comment is justified.) Yes. In fact when you shop for auto loan you are expected to have your credit score/report be pulled by different banks, credit unions, and/or the financing arm of the car manufacturer or the dealership, so that you can hopefully get the best rate possible. This is especially true if the dealer is requesting quotes on rates on your behalf, as they would probably use a batch process to send out applications to multiple financial institutions all at once. Yes, and a bit unusual - CALVERT TOYO (your dealer) pulled your report twice on the same day. Presumably they are not getting any new information on the second pull. Maybe a fat finger? Regardless, you should not worry about this too much (to be explained below). I would say \"\"don't bother\"\". The idea behind hard inquiries lowering credit score is that lenders see the number of hard inquiries as your desire for credit. Too high a number is often viewed as either \"\"desperate for credit\"\" or \"\"unable to qualify for credit\"\". But as explained above, it is very common for a person to request quotes for multiple financial institutions and thus to have multiple hard inquiries in a short period of time when shopping for loans. To account for that, the credit bureau's model would usually combine hard inquiries for a same type of loan (auto, mortgage, etc.) within 30 days. Hence a person sending quote request to 3 banks won't be rated higher for credit than if he were to request quotes from 5 banks. Therefore in your case your credit profile is not going to be different if you had been pulled just once. my credit score goes down for 15 points I'm assuming you are talking about the credit score provided by Credit Karma. The score CK provided is FAKO. The score lenders care about is FICO. They are well correlated but still different. Google these two terms and you should be able to figure out the difference quickly. You can also refer to my answer to a different question here: Equifax credit score discrepancy in 1 month, why?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd2b94114db1b8e58383c08c3f403b16",
"text": "Lenders want to judge the stability of the stated income. Because your are new to being self-employed they are concerned about your viability. It may be possible to find another lender who will consider a shorter term of business, but it looks like the lender wants 24 months of business. You should start with your current bank/credit Union, and if they say no ask what more info you need to provide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b4158af5e9614d1df98e6d6988ea694",
"text": "You mention that you would quit right after getting approved. But in the United States there would be one last check as a part of closing. Therefore it would be best to wait until after closing to quit your job. Waiting until after closing would also protect you from some hiccup that causes a delay in closing, thus requiring the need to reapply for the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a973884516a9b20614aa458246f2d06",
"text": "No, it will have no negative impact on getting a mortgage. You are building up a history with regular payments and are not carrying a balance on the card each month. Your ability to get a mortgage will ultimately be based on other things. Money Saving Expert has a good guide on what will affect your credit score. A further discussion on the topic that backs up that what a mortgage company is interested in is affordability and a stable history. They really don't care about utilisation ratios. (Though might be spooked by almost maxed out cards - sign of poor spending control, or large unused limits - too easy to go into bad debt.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c02c01c6ca9bab6e0eeb104dac733e3e",
"text": "\"This article on the landlord website Property118.com shows a simple example, demonstrating that a private landlord with a mortgage could see a huge jump in their effective tax rate (in this case, from 18% to 67% by 2020), while a corporate landlord will see no change at all. There's also a link in that article to a detailed report which is highly critical of the tax changes. The government obviously take a different view! (See here for more worked examples of how the tax changes will be applied). More information can be found on this on various landlord sites. A key phrase to look for is \"\"section 24\"\", referring to the section of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 which implements the change. Note that this change only applies to private landlords (i.e. those who own a property personally, rather than through a company), and who have a mortgage on the property, and who (after the new calculations) are higher or additional rate taxpayers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7060958d04aeaa00434f7d5a0d442542",
"text": "Would it be worth legitimizing his business or is it too late at this point? To be blunt, you're asking if we recommend that he stop breaking the law. The answer is obviously yes, he should be declaring his income. And it would probably benefit him to get on the same page as his employer (or client) so they can both start obeying the law together. Once he's filed a tax return for 2016 that would certainly help his cause as far as a lender is concerned, and as soon as he can provide some recent pay stubs (or paid invoices) he should be ready to move forward on the mortgage based on that additional income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a99ef0c8cc1d1302d5e75e47d44c9610",
"text": "In some cases, especially but not only for subprime loans, they are actually testing whether you will lie to them. (Discovered this when working on a loan origination applicatíon for car dealers -- they explicitly did not want us to autocomplete some values because that might remind applicants that answers would be checked.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3acc09fce33e69930d2bf14ced64bb7",
"text": "If I recall correctly, the pay schedule is such that you initially pay mostly interest. As James Roth suggests, look at the terms of the loan, specifically the payment schedule. It should detail how much is being applied to interest and how much to the actual balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "acd54039a93a99e6a45bd56d41b1e0a7",
"text": "\"tl;dr: Your best course of action is probably to do a soft pull (check your own credit) and provide that to the lender for an unofficial pre-approval to get the ball rolling. The long of it: The loan officer is mostly correct, and I have recent personal evidence that corroborates that. A few months ago I looked into refinancing a mortgage on a rental property, and I allowed 3 different lenders to do a hard inquiry within 1 week of each other. I saw all 3 inquires appear on reports from each of the 3 credit bureaus (EQ/TU/EX), but it was only counted as a single inquiry in my score factors. But as you have suggested, this breaks down when you know that you won't be purchasing right away, because then you will have multiple hard inquiries at least a few months apart which could possibly have a (minor) negative impact on your score. However minor it is, you might as well try to avoid it if you can. I have played around with the simulator on myfico.com, and have found inquiries to have the following effect on your credit score using the FICO Score 8 model: With one inquiry, your scores will adjust as such: Two inquiries: Three inquiries: Here's a helpful quote from the simulator notes: \"\"Credit inquiries remain on your credit report for 2 years, but FICO Scores only consider credit inquiries from the past 12 months.\"\" Of course, take that with a grain of salt, as myfico provides the following disclaimer: The Simulator is provided for informational purposes only and should not be expected to provide accurate predictions in all situations. Consequently, we make no promise or guarantee with regard to the Simulator. Having said all that, in your situation, if you know with certainty that you will not be purchasing right away, then I would recommend doing a soft pull to get your scores now (check your credit yourself), and see if the lender will use those numbers to estimate your pre-approval. One possible downside of this is the lender may not be able to give you an official pre-approval letter based on your soft pull. I wouldn't worry too much about that though since if you are suddenly ready to purchase you could just tell them to go ahead with the hard pull so they can furnish an official pre-approval letter. Interesting Side Note: Last month I applied for a new mortgage and my score was about 40 points lower than it was 3 months ago. At first I thought this was due to my recent refinancing of property and the credit inquiries that came along with it, but then I noticed that one of my business credit cards had recently accrued a high balance. It just so happens that this particular business CC reports to my personal credit report (most likely in error but I never bothered to do anything about it). I immediately paid that CC off in full, and checked my credit 20 days later after it had reported, and my score shot back up by over 30 points. I called my lender and instructed them to re-pull my credit (hard inquiry), which they did, and this pushed me back up into the best mortgage rate category. Yes, I purposely requested another hard pull, but it shouldn't affect my score since it was within 45 days, and that maneuver will save me thousands in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8defaaaef4e57a5dca811246a42fc530",
"text": "That metric is not very useful for anything other than very extremely long trading periods. Most strategies or concerned with price movement over much shorter time frames, 15 mins, 1 hr, 4 hr, daily, weekly, monthly. The MA or moving average is a trend following lagging indicator used to smooth out price fluctuations and more accurately reflect the price of trading instrument such as a stock (AAPL), commodity, or currency pair. Traders are generally concerned with current market trends and price action of the instrument they are trading. As such, an extremely long MA (average daily price, over a period of 365 days) are generally not that important.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a41cff5f50a5273570348663170e5593
|
What's the minimum revenue an LLC must make in Florida or NY states?
|
[
{
"docid": "d76bbc43cd3bf93b8b9e3ae212e99e7b",
"text": "\"Depends on the State. In California, for example, you pay a franchise tax of $800 every year just for having LLC, and in addition to that - income tax on gross revenue. But in other States (like Wyoming, for example) there's no taxes at all, only registration fees (which may still amount to ~$100-300 a year). IRS doesn't care about LLC's at all (unless you chose to treat is as a corporation). You need to understand that in the US we have the \"\"Federal Government\"\" (IRS is part of that) and the \"\"State Government\"\" that deals with business entities, in each of the 50 States. Since you're talking about Italy, and not EU, you should similarly be talking about the relevant State, and not US.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3a867c6f052ff0ca6c6709e1a4dfacbe",
"text": "The LLC portion is completely irrelevant. Don't know why you want it. You can create a joint/partnership trading account without the additional complexity of having LLC. What liability are you trying to limit here? Her sisters will file tax returns in the us using the form 1040NR, and only reporting the dividends they received, everything else will be taxed by Vietnam. You'll have to investigate how to file tax returns there as well. That said, you'll need about $500,000 each to invest in the regional centers. So you're talking about 1.5 million of US dollars at least. From a couple of $14K gifts to $1.5M just by trading? I don't see how this is feasible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b785bcf974c97d43b0f71c871e9a9f2a",
"text": "No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56366def285b890e0e187764b2691abf",
"text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acbac83c34259f4b1376602914b038fe",
"text": "Maybe I can explain a little clearer: Your LLC is not a person, and cannot have taxes withheld on its behalf. Therefore, anyone paying your company should not withhold taxes. If they are paying you directly, and withholding taxes, they are treating you as an employee, and will probably issue a W2 instead of a 1099. Put it this way: Your LLC is a separate company providing services to that company. They shouldn't withhold taxes any more than they would when paying their ISP, or power company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90605b0a6f67febcdf781d210077a575",
"text": "I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78afcaa1e3f306174cdd0ed42651cd2e",
"text": "how does a single employee LLC bring in 500k? I mean if you want to have it in a low-tax environment, you can probably invest it in something and then pull them out? I don't think you can put away pre-tax earnings to then use on salary costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac312006d6f1c199884fac1886a4e1fc",
"text": "The LLC will not be liable for anything, it is disregarded for tax purposes. If you're doing any work while in the US, or you (or your spouse) are a green card holder or a US citizen - then you (not the LLC) may be liable, may be required to file, pay, etc. Unless you're employing someone, or have more than one member in your LLC, you do not need an EIN. Re the bank - whatever you want. If you want you can open an account in an American bank. If you don't - don't. Who cares?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf49cfcd2a5ddfdcc47d4ebf7667b29",
"text": "I'm not confident that the requirements for 2017 are up yet, but assuming they don't change much from those of 2016, then probably not if you have no other earnings this year. If you make $500 a month, then you will make $6,000 this year. This is below the filing requirements for most taxpayers, unless you are married but filing separately. At the end of 2017 you should tally up your earnings (including earnings from other sources) find which category you find yourself in on the table, and make a final determination of whether you'll need to file.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2165327c3c3f3f94f8d28852faad5bfd",
"text": "Driver's license isn't relevant. If NYS considers you a part-year resident, they assess income tax on a pro rata basis. NY is broke now, so expect them to be really obnoxious about it if you make a lot of money. California probably has a similar policy. If you really make a lot of money, the demands of the states in these matters are insane. I've read of cases where a state has actually demanded that an individual provide documentation of their in-/out-of-state status for every day of the year!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ec07a7084d37b0262ffb6813149b45",
"text": "Residents pay tax on all of the income they receive during the calendar year from all sources, so you'll at least need to file and pay New York state income taxes on this money regardless. I can't answer whether you'll need to file and pay Colorado state income tax on this money as well. Generally speaking, you need to file a return for each state in which you live, receive income, or have business interests. If you are required to file a Colorado state income tax return, however, you can claim a credit for taxes paid to another state on your New York state income tax return using form IT-112-R (see the form and instructions).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fd6d379a23acdd8369d63e87fb51d0e",
"text": "You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d712e4318ff47ff4c92c5ddf4fa22d",
"text": "I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to do, but it sounds like you're trying to create a business expense for paying off your personal debt. If so - you cannot do that. It will constitute a tax fraud, and if you have additional partners in the LLC other than you and your spouse - it may also become an embezzlement issue. Re your edits: Or for example, can you create a tuition assistance program within your company and pay yourself out of that for the purposes of student loan money. Explicitly forbidden. Tuition assistance program cannot pay more than 5% of its benefits to owners. See IRS pub 15-B. You would think that if there was a way to just incorporate and make your debts pre-tax - everyone would be doing it, wouldn't you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af46f9f222b03afc70c4c684572cf355",
"text": "\"For Non-Resident filers, New York taxes New York-sourced income. That includes: real or tangible personal property located in New York State (including certain gains or losses from the sale or exchange of an interest in an entity that owns real property in New York State); services performed in New York State; a business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on in New York State; and a New York S corporation in which you are a shareholder (including installment income from an IRC 453 transaction). There are some exclusions as well. It is all covered in the instructions to form IT-203. However, keep in mind that \"\"filing\"\" as non-resident doesn't make you non-resident. If you spend 184 days or more in New York State, and you have a place to stay there - you are resident. See definitions here. Even if you don't actually live there and consider yourself a CT resident.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "616eeb050776c24607530a993d6be9d5",
"text": "\"New York will want to you to pay taxes on income from \"\"New York sources\"\". I'm not sure what this means to a freelance web developer. If your wife is doing freelance web development under the same business entity as she did in New York (ie. a New York sole proprietor, corporation, etc), you probably do need to file. From nonresident tax form manual: http://tax.ny.gov/pdf/2011/inc/it203i_2011.pdf If you were a nonresident of New York State, you are subject to New York State tax on income you received from New York State sources in 2011. If you were a resident of New York State for only part of 2011, you are subject to New York State tax on all income you received while you were a resident of the state and on income you received from New York State sources while you were a nonresident. To compute the amount of tax due, use Form IT-203, Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return. You will compute a base tax as if you were a full-year resident, then determine the percentage of your income that is subject to New York State tax and the amount of tax apportioned to New York State.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f32db279288b5726c22159492891b6d4",
"text": "\"Since as you say, an LLC is a pass-through entity, you will be making income in the U.S. when you sell to U.S. customers. And so you will need to file the appropriate personal tax forms in the US. As well as potentially in one or more States. The US government does not register LLCs. The various States do. So you'll be dealing with Oregon, Wisconsin, Wyoming, one of those for the LLC registration. You will also need to have a registered agent in the State. That is a big deal since the entire point of forming an LLC is to add a liability shield. You would lose the liability shield by not maintaining the business formalities. Generally nations aim to tax income made in their nation, and many decline to tax income that you've already paid taxes on in another nation. A key exception: If money is taxed by the U.S. it may also be taxed by one of the States. Two States won't tax the same dollar. Registering an LLC in one State does not mean you'll pay state taxes there. Generally States tax income made in their State. It's common to have a Wyoming LLC that never pays a penny of tax in Wyoming. Officially, an LLC doing business in a State it did not form in, must register in that State as a \"\"foreign LLC\"\" even though it's still in the USA. The fee is usually the same as for a domestic LLC. \"\"Doing business\"\" means something more than incidental sales, it means having a presence specifically in the State somehow. It gets complicated quick. If you are thinking of working in someone's app ecosystem like the Apple Store, Google Play, Steam etc. Obviously they want their developers coding, not wrestling with legalities, so some of them make a priority out of clearing and simplifying legal nuisances for you. Find out what they do for you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dd84c678d706be9f3baf2bc7efddb00e
|
Why so much noise about USA's credit rating being lowered?
|
[
{
"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": "62fce22d874701280896565f7ce28c74",
"text": "\"Pension- and many \"\"low-risk\"\" investment funds may only invest in AAA-rated stocks and bonds. While the S&P rating alone doesn't imply that such funds must immediately disinvest in US bonds (Fitch and Moody's are holding), it does create the risk that the other rating agencies will follow suite and also lower the US rating. As the largest issuer of bonds, controller of the world's reserve currency, and with many emerging markets placing almost all their current account surpluses in US bonds, this risk change has implications everywhere. Some companies will already start disinvestment while some investors will start demanding higher interest returns in order to buy US bonds. It isn't yet a stampede, but the gates are now open. That said, S&P is simply reflecting the opinions of bond traders. Markets were already unstable long before the downrating. However, from the US perspective, it is a timely reminder to politicians that the global balance is shifting and that the US cannot count on incumbency to protect it from the disapproval of financial analysts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9dab648c073d7d951d574e279b4de7",
"text": "Dollar is the lingua franca of the financial industry and unluckily it is the US currency. It is till today considered the most safest investment bet, that is why you have China possesing $3 trillion of US debt, as an investment albiet a very safe one. Financial investors get in queue to by US bonds the moment they are put up for sale. Because of the AAA rating the investors consider it to be safe at a specific rate. Now when you lower the credit rating you are indirectly asking the US government that you want a higher return(yield) on your investments. When you ask for higher yields, it translates into higher interest rates (money US would get for bonds issued decreases and so more bonds are issued). So you basically start looking at a slowdown in consumer spendings households and businesses. With already defaults, repossesions and lesser spending, the slowdown would increase manifold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1527d960ca0ae909169234ac934632c1",
"text": "The credit scale is deceptive, it goes: AAA, AA, A, BBB, BBB-, BB+, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D. In reality it should be A,B,C,D,E, F, G,H, I, etc. The current scale does not reflect with clarity the ranking of risks and ratings. AA is much worse than AAA, but the uncertainty involved can be scary. Check out these corporate and sovereign debt credit ratings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41545ca0fa6ba9f24a5671dfa997581d",
"text": "\"Because the USA is the world's biggest economy - everybody in the world works with the USA (even if the american companies are not direct suppliers, they are surely somewhere in the supply chain). If USA credit rating is lower, that means american companies will find it harder to get loans to finance their business (i.e. the price of capital will be higher), and this will consequently lead to higher prices for partners of american companies, etc. This will certainly lead to slowdown of global economy. Plus, the lower credit rating also means that the USA govt. is less likely to pay off the debts (Chinese already stated they will diversify their bonds portfolio -i.e. they will start selling out american govt. bonds). This will lead to cuts in public sector in USA, less spending by the consumers, also probably less import from abroad and less travel which will affect - you get it - the \"\"RoW\"\". It's not by chance we have a saying in Europe, when USA sneezes, the rest of the world catches a flu!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c415f4a427b7a961daed56c38c5641f7",
"text": "Oh ok I see what you are getting at with the misdirection angle. I was wondering if there was a deeper meaning. Like making it more expensive for other nation to borrow money would help in some way for the US to unload it’s garbage?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1ec558b13fb76754d0fdaf49b981640",
"text": "Reaching the debt ceiling is an admission that the US can't pay its bills as they come due. Credit rating agencies could cut the US's debt rating, making acquisition of new debt much more difficult. Creditors could file for involuntary bankruptcy, forcing the government to pay back the debt - which, to be clear, it simply is incapable of doing in any kind of reasonable timeframe. The loss of confidence in the US's ability to pay its debts... Given how the US is such a financial and economic center of the world (partially by design, partially by happenstance), it would probably be disastrous worldwide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cfd2a73d15108f80c99e0fac73fa980",
"text": "Also, interest rates and credit risk directly corelate to Greece's ability to service the debt. Japan could be at 400% and Greece 50%, but if they can't make payments or have credit good enought to refi the debt, that's when they will default. Meanwhile, the fact that they are risky drives up rates further and makes it even harder to make payments. It's called the death spiral. Japan has low rates, solid GDP and good credit = non-issue.",
"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": "f441e55e66ed879cef39d6545bc24285",
"text": "Don't know why you're getting downvoted, wouldn't be worried about a credit crisis until we get bad jobs numbers, so far they've been pretty fucking good. On top of it interest rates are at historic lows. Maybe in the future but not now",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22bbe56378aea4fba20cd691be1adc8a",
"text": "Because it's barely reported and when it is most people don't understand some of the fundamental principles of finance to grasp the implications of it all. It's not their fault really. You can blame a man for a lack of wanting to be educated or no concern for intellectual curiosity but you can't for just being plainly uneducated.",
"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": "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": "53a4702afa7b5c8d2feab0fd72d0caa6",
"text": "\"This is known as an inverted yield curve. It is rare, and can be caused by a few things, as discussed at the link. It can be because the view is that the economy will slow and therefore interest rates will go down. It is not caused by \"\"secret\"\" preparation. It could also be that there is generally in the world a move towards safer investments, making their interest rates cheaper. If I had to guess (and this guess is worth what you paid for it) it is because Australia's interest rate is significantly greater than other parts of the world, long term lower risk investment is being attracted there, as it gets a better return than elsewhere. This is pushing rates lower on long term bonds. So I would not take it as an indication of a soon-to-be economic downturn simply because in this global economy Australia is different in ways that influence investment and move interest rates.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3183eaf434c9e5a766a8bacab88329e0",
"text": "In principle, a default will have no effect on your bank account. But if the US's credit rating is downgraded, the knock-on effects might cause some more bank failures, and if the debt ceiling is still in place then the FDIC insurance might not be able to pay out immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bfca67c5764c321162f28e2f725a737",
"text": "The picture talks is about assets on the Fed's balance sheet, which is very different than US government debt. Nor is there anything in the picture about corporate bottom lines, just US equities. The implication of the picture is that the Fed's QE program is propping up US equity prices, and it is not a comment on the US debt or corporate earnings. You're reading things that simply aren't there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "527ed0927a72d065546cc9c9b44eb994",
"text": "Should voters care? What is the scenario in which this debt actually becomes a problem? It seems to me that the money from this debt is largely going into the pockets of US Citizens, so less debt would mean less prosperity for Americans. What are the arguments against this assumption?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c93087d0f9e0211ac98e62b04d7fb3e5",
"text": "\"The sad part about this, IMHO, is that almost all of this new debt is \"\"bad debt\"\". Meaning it hasn't really gone into productive endeavors. Just stock buy-backs and such. So it has had minimal positive effects but is likely to be a drag on future growth for decades.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a5a111977188a198987902819134621",
"text": "So nothing preventing false ratings besides additional scrutiny from the market/investors, but there are some newer controls in place to prevent institutions from using them. Under the DFA banks can no longer solely rely on credit ratings as due diligence to buy a financial instrument, so that's a plus. The intent being that if financial institutions do their own leg work then *maybe* they'll figure out that a certain CDO is garbage or not. Edit: lead in",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b694223af98a9fc679eef5620ab4827d",
"text": "And I was being facetious, apologies. I think your assertion that the > entire crux of the story was that credit ratings agencies weren't transparent is a massive simplification of what happened. There are many great analyses of the crisis, and most of them come to the conclusion that 'it was a perfect storm' of different factors. I gather you think the problem was regulatory, I think the problem is systemic. To me it doesn't matter how the regulations are written what matters are the incentives. I see no evidence that the regulatory agencies in the US can effectively police, let alone effectively deter financial institutions from skirting the laws. In fact I think wall street runs on such a haystack of grey-area regulations that without wholesale, root and branch reform (e.g. antitrust laws similar to Standard Oil to be used on the big banks) there's no hope that any patchwork of regulations, well-intentioned as they may be, from making a difference. CDOs are a great example of what to avoid.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7a919d1500bcd2bb6fa0abad83601d0e
|
How is a relocation fee of more than 40k taxed?
|
[
{
"docid": "d497f8cfbdbc39b4db633f05186d6ca9",
"text": "It is ordinary income to you. You should probably talk to a California licensed CRTP/EA/CPA, but I doubt they'll say anything different. You would probably ask them whether you can treat some of it as a refund of rent paid, but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9884bff3588d88726e2c43c5706cb6a3",
"text": "With a $40,000 payment there is a 100% chance that the owner will be claiming this as a business expense on their taxes. The IRS and the state will definitely know about it, and the risk of interest and penalties if it is not claimed as income make the best course of action to see a tax adviser. Because taxes will not be taken out by the property owner, the tax payer should also make sure that the estimated $10,000 in federal taxes, if they are in the 25% tax bracket, doesn't trigger other tax issues that could result in penalties, or the need to file quarterly taxes next year. This kind of extra income could also result in a change or an elimination of a health care subsidy. A unexpected mid-year change could trigger the need to refund the subsidy received this year via the tax form next April.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7ad5b8a7665f87f4c1a7685590461e7f",
"text": "This is tax fraud, plain and simple. I recently wrote an article The Step Transaction Doctrine, in which I explain that a series of events may each be legal, but aggregate to one transaction and the individual steps are ignored. In this case, it goes beyond that, by accepting $5/mo you are already outside the tax code. As littleadv noted, you can't work for a legitimate business for free and not expect to have some kind of issue. The $14K/yr gift isn't a bona fide gift, but ties to that work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9382eb16f4d6ce49d0ad28fe94ebd29",
"text": "The trickiest thing is the federal tax. It's typical to withhold 25% federal on this type of event. If your federal marginal rate was already towards the top of that bracket, you'll owe the missing 3% as you enter the 28% bracket. Nothing awful, just be aware.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c930773cbdab6cfa142d2de38f85489",
"text": "First, contact the new employer's HR or payroll dept, whoever handles this. You might be able to warn them that your wife deposited x$ already. If they can tell their system to stop deposits at ($16500 - x$), that would work. If not, she will need to arrange to withdraw the excess, and pay the tax that wasn't withheld. No penalty, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7025abbb8c3634f7cd9a1bb9bd33f071",
"text": "\"I think the 60 days/year come from the IRS tax residency determination, which isn't a Florida law but applies to all the states. Have a look at the \"\"substantial presence\"\" paragraph to see where the 60 days are coming from.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e51fa1febacfa9f7651a71b108ddcb48",
"text": "In the US, mortgage payments are not deductible. What is deductible is the mortgage interest (to a limit). That, as well, is not deductible unconditionally, but rather as part of your itemized deductions on Schedule A of your yearly tax return. So if you're married and have a standard deduction of $12600 a year, live in a state with no state income tax, and your property tax and the mortgage interest are less than your standard deduction - you will not be getting any tax benefit whatsoever. That is, in fact, the case for many, if not majority, of the US mortgage payers. So in order to get a proper estimate, you need to take into account all the aspects of your tax calculations, which are by nature quite personal, and simulate the changes with the mortgage interest deduction. Most tax preparation software will allow you creating multiple files, so you can run the numbers for different scenarios.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4de1cd7e92f17a072a83187136dbf371",
"text": "\"If you're making $80k, and you're consulting for an extra $400/wk or $20,800/yr, you're earning a total of $100,800. That's assuming you do it for a full calendar year of course. Either way, assuming you can deduct/exclude at least $11k of income (as almost everyone can), you're paying 25% on your marginal dollars. (This also assumes you're single; if you're married/filing jointly, this may not be true.) Note, you're right at the edge of the 25% bracket if you earn this in a full calendar year - but if you have a 401k, health insurance, or other reductions you'll be fine. Additionally, for this year you'll be under (again assuming single and no other income) because you aren't earning a full year's worth. Assuming your $80k is precisely taken care of by your regular withholding, then, you will literally pay 25%*$400/week in additional taxes - $100 per week. So if you are paid biweekly, you need to add $200/week in withholding on your W-4. If you expect to overpay taxes (if you own a house with a mortgage for example, you often do), you can reduce it some, but adding $200/biweekly paycheck should bring you right to where you were before the extra income. The general rule is to calculate your marginal (not effective) tax rate before the new income, assuming default withholding takes care of that, and then withhold the marginal rate for the new income [checking that the new income doesn't push the marginal rate up - if so, calculate in two parts, the part in the lower marginal rate and the part in the higher marginal rate]. You can google \"\"2014 tax brackets\"\", or look at the IRS tax tables for detailed information about marginal rates.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96503ad0863d795ad2f0d81405f41c31",
"text": "75k is short of the 'highly compensated' category. Most US citizens in that pay range would consider paying someone to do their taxes as an unnecessary expense. Tax shelters usually don't come into play for this level of income. However, there are certain things which provide deductions. Some things that make it better to pay someone: Use the free online tax forms to sandbox your returns. If all you're concerned about is ensuring you pay your taxes correctly, this is the most cost efficient route. If you want to minimize your tax burden, consult with a CPA. Be sure to get one who is familiar with resident aliens from your country and the relevant tax treaties. The estimate you're looking at may be the withholding, of which you may be eligible for a refund for some part of that withholding. Tax treaties likely make sure that you get credit on each side for the money paid in the other. For example, as a US citizen, if I go to Europe and work and pay taxes there, I can deduct the taxes paid in Europe from my tax burden in the US. If I've already paid more to the EU than I would have paid on the same amount earned in the US, then my tax burden in the US is zero. By the same token, if I have not paid up to my US burden, then I owe the balance to the US. But this is way better than paying taxes to your home country and to the host country where you earned the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f9936a491b490f6078a3268fba001cb",
"text": "\"I'm being taxed at a 40% rate, then I can give $500,000 to charity, write it off, and save $200,000 on my taxes. That's a net loss of $300,000. I may have paid less taxes, but it cost me 300 grand. Your logic is correct. However, here's another way to think about it. Suppose you are being taxed at a 40% rate. You wish to purchase $500,000 worth of diamonds. How much do you have to make in income to do so? You need to make $833,333 in income, pay 40% of that ($333,333) in taxes, and then spend the $500,000 on the diamonds. But to spend that $500,000 on a charitable donation, you only need to make an income of $500,000, taxed at a rate of 0%, because donations to charity count against your taxable income. Or, yet another way to think about it, is that if you make $833,333 in income, you can spend it on $500,000 worth of diamonds, or $833,333 worth of charitable contributions; effectively you get to purchase $333,333 worth of charitable contributions \"\"for free\"\" over the equivalent purchase that is not a charitable donation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4373d94f063892d4c6c57efa7308773",
"text": "\"This is a fascinating question. I am posting here only a partial answer because I haven't found official sources. The upshot appears to be that a Puerto Rico IRA is a wholly different thing from a US IRA, and different rules apply. This is said most succinctly in this post on the Boglehead forums: US federal tax code and Puerto Rican tax codes are separate. By contributing to a U.S. IRA, you defer US taxes. You need to pay these deferred US taxes, and take an early withdrawal penalty too, if you want to move the asset to PR. Other web pages give similar information, for instance, this post from \"\"Accountant Forums\"\": The Puerto Rico (PR) Internal Revenue Code (IRC) defines a Puerto Rico IRA (I am assuming that this taxpayer has a PR IRA.). It is unfortunate that they chose to use the same name as the US IRC uses. A PR IRA is not a US IRA. It has different tax rules. In addition, the US IRC defines an IRA as being \"\"a trust created or organized in the United States.\"\" The US IRC (Sec. 7701) defines the United States as being the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Bogleheads thread also contains a link to a document from a Puerto Rican CPA school which appears to be a FAQ, and says (translated here from Spanish): Thus, any distribution from an IRA established in Puerto Rico does not qualify to be transferred to an IRA established outside Puerto Rico without the imposition of penalty and/or payment of corresponding income tax. In the same way, the transfer of an IRA established outside Puerto Rico to one established in Puerto Rico also does not qualify as a transfer. It is not clear whether the exact meaning of \"\"transfer\"\" (given as either \"\"transferencia\"\" or \"\"traspaso\"\" in the document) corresponds to the US usage of IRA transfers (i.e., nontaxable events); some information I found indicates that the end of the quote above might be translated as \"\"does not qualify as a rollover\"\". In any case, it seems that moving an IRA to or from Puerto Rico at least potentially has tax consequences. There is also a previous question on this site which likewise says \"\"You cannot transfer or rollover an IRA that was established in PR to USA and vice versa\"\". These are not exactly authoritative sources, but they all seem to point towards the same conclusion, namely that you won't be able to avoid taxation on your IRA by moving to Puerto Rico. Of course, I am no expert. To be sure, you would have to talk to an accountant versed in the tax laws of both Puerto Rico and the incorporated US (and probably also whatever state you'd be moving from, to be on the safe side.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5f196c6239b5c814ea7b548bbdbeb90",
"text": "Yeah it just got bumped up to 11.25 and they're going to be increasing it over the next couple of years before capping at 15. Rent is already rising to adjust to this development. Doesn't help that income tax here is insane.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0845ea3bb217850b6499a6db3cd4b63",
"text": "\"First, I'm not a CPA or international tax accountant; my entire understanding of the French tax system is entirely from what I've read in places like the WSJ, Barrons, WaPo, etc. However, ***my understanding*** is that French tax law works something like this. Let's say France has a tax rate of 35%. First, it must be assessed where the controlling entity is. In this case, if the majority of production and labor, or if the corporation is primarily based in France, it would proceed as follows. Taxes are initially paid based on transfer pricing to the original local entity (this avoids \"\"double taxation\"\"). So in the example above, you would pay 10% to India on the $3,000,000 in profits ($300,000). You would then reduce the 35% French tax rate by the 10% already paid. This means you would pay an additional 25% to France ($750,000). The premise is that you have an effective \"\"minimum\"\" tax threshold for being in France. In the case above, companies like GE would have to pay the difference (this doesn't get into tax breaks/shelters on previously recorded losses, etc.). Again, ***I AM NOT SURE ON THIS***. This is my basic understanding and am by no means a tax accountant/lawyer/etc. From what I understand; however, this hasn't necessarily been a good thing for France either (California is likely a similar case study with the Unitary return requirement). The fact is the world is very global nowadays. Its easier and cheaper for the companies to just leave instead of being forced to pay higher taxes... IMO, Germany hit it right on the head. Low corporate tax rates with high personal tax rates. This maintains a very business friendly environment (business move there because of the skilled labor and low corporate taxes), but they effectively pass the burden on to individuals (who also benefit from the pro-business environment). You'd be hard pressed to find an economist that doesn't think Germany's economy has been very strong over the past decade (very good Soros speech that was recently posted about his analysis of the Euro and Germany's unfair benefits, but that's a whole different gear). What I find the issue to be is the whole concept is complex enough that's difficult to explain to the average person with a 2 second attention span. That's why I like writing posts like this, to try to help people understand how finance and businesses operate behind the scenes!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d40457654507d077aaa16693767506f8",
"text": "\"Wait, are you sure you've got that right? What you're describing is a tax credit that counts against your total owed. In normal operations, companies get to \"\"write off\"\" all of their expenses and they only pay taxes on the net profit of the operation. So I guess you could say that if it cost me $100M to move a factory off shore, and my marginal tax rate was 35%, then I would \"\"save\"\" $35M in taxes ( it still cost me the $100M, but it only felt like it cost $65M). This is true of any business expense. I (not Romney, apparently) don't know of any special treatment that offshoring activities get one way or the other.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee21749916f89670ecfa90cfb2e9c360",
"text": "\"While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say \"\"no\"\" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000 miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (\"\"pleasure\"\") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is \"\"business\"\" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed. If there's a reasonable portion dedicated to your business/rental, and the rest is pleasure - you'll have to split some of the costs and only deduct the portion attributed to the business activities. You'll have to analyze your specific situation, and see where it falls. Don't stretch the limits too much, it will cost you more on the long run after all the audits and penalties. Can I also write off all travel involved in the purchase of the property? Although, again, the \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" justification of such a trip is arguable, lets assume it is necessary and ordinary and generally justified. It is reasonable to expect you to go and see the property with your own eyes before the closing (IMHO, of course, I'm not an authority). Such an expense can be either business or investment expense. If its a business expense - its deductible on schedule C. If its an investment expense (if you do buy the property), its added to the cost of the property (capitalized). I'm not a tax adviser or a tax professional, and this is not a tax advice. This answer was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code. You should seek a professional consultation with a CPA/Attorney(tax) licensed in your State(s) or a Federally licensed Enrolled Agent (EA).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e86ce0a96fa86c9a6148bec403e66783",
"text": "\"The $100,000 is taxed separately as \"\"ordinary income\"\". The $350,000 is taxed at long-term capital gains of 15%. Capital gains is not taxed at 20% until $415,050. Even though $100,000 + 350,000 = $450,000, only $350,000 can be taxed at capital gains. The total ordinary income tax burden will be $31,986 if single, in California. Caveat: By creating a holdings corporation (C-corp), you can section 351 that $100,000 into the C-corp for tax deferment, which won't be taxed until you take money from the corporation. Since you will hold 100% of the voting stock, all distributions will be considered pro rata. Additionally, you can issue yourself a dividend under the rules of 26 USC §§243-246 (a greather-than-80% shareholder who receives a dividend can write-off 100% of said dividend). As long as that dividend doesn't trigger §§1.243-246 of The Regulations by keeping the distribution just under 10% of E&P i.e. $10,000. Wages are deductible against basis so pay yourself $35,000 and keep $55,000 in the corporation and you can decrease the total liabilities down to $22,000 from $31,000, which includes the CA franchise tax. You don't have to pay yourself any money out a corporation to use the money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b303d03f0f9654a0cf1ce8ea80c29772",
"text": "For providing financing assistance to the clients, Invoice Finance and Factoring Services are provided by some recognized professional financial services providers in London. They can help in improving cash flows and credit control. Before applying for loans, a business has to undergo the lengthy processes and legal formalities. To simplify these procedures, Forfaiting Financial Services in London are provided to many organizations.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
def4d636709889a8b860c2d65dbf6e1d
|
How can one go short in Uber?
|
[
{
"docid": "242b9720ed53efad88c9fbaf61a8fe93",
"text": "The answer to this question is related to another question: How would I invest in Uber? Given that Uber is a privately-held company, the average investor cannot directly buy stock. However, there are some indirect methods that you can use to invest in Uber, and as a result, it is also possible to indirectly short Uber. One method is to invest in (or short) companies that invest in Uber. Alphabet/Google (GOOG) owns some, as well as Microsoft (MSFT), Toyota (ADR), and other companies. Theoretically, you could short these companies, as a hit to Uber would be bad for those companies. Another method would be to look at Uber's competitors. Think about what companies would do well if Uber went under. Lyft, perhaps, although it is so similar to Uber that if one has trouble, the other may as well. Perhaps instead you might invest in a traditional taxi company, or a company that provides services to taxi companies, such as Medallion Financial Corporation (MFIN). Keep in mind that either investing or shorting any of these is not really the same as investing/shorting Uber. It provides you some exposure in Uber, but your investment is also affected by many other things that have nothing to do with Uber. For more information, see the Investopedia article Ways to Invest in Uber before It Goes Public. For the record, I don't recommend that you do any of this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85e7e5ab0f2b5157a9fe6f4bbf32e8c8",
"text": "\"Pay someone a fee to borrow their private Uber shares, then sell those private shares to someone else, then find someone else you can buy their private shares from for less than the net of the proceeds you made selling the borrowed shares you sold plus the fees you've paid to the first person and return your newly purchased shares back to the person you initially borrowed the shares from. On a serious note, Uber is private; there is no liquid public market for the shares so there is no mechanism to short the company. The valuations you see might not even be legitimate because the company's financials are not public. You could try to short a proxy for Uber but to my knowledge there is no public \"\"rideshare\"\"/taxi service business similar enough to Uber to be a reasonably legitimate proxy.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "911335a6493fd702b05dc26f1cf207fa",
"text": ">Yes. The lack of insight and superficial treatment of the subject... I am sure if you were a bit more specific in your first post it would have been more helpful. That remark left me wondering if you were attacking the author. Anyway I think he made a few points clear though I felt the article missed a vital insight: *Uber doesn't have a sustainable competitive advantage in the long run.* They have been competing on price to beat Lyft that's why they had to resort to this cheap tactic. The illegal business model is a mere symptom.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f9aaf73ce130f4bfefc2fa22d8b2134",
"text": "While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85d58a18e68588f99c66ec5f8a8d3e2f",
"text": "Adding to the answers above, there is another source of risk: if one of the companies you are short receives a bid to be purchased by another company, the price will most probably rocket...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f14ee281def5cf70e5d2c1db7e5e69c",
"text": "-Most investors would be insulated against losses through diversified portfolios. -Uber's staff would lose their stock options, and along with drivers, would face unemployment. -Other services would grow to meet consumer demands. I don't mean to be rude, but these answers are so obvious, this article is one step above clickbait.",
"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": "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": "57fbd8fd6a022e1caa2cc780ff82bf5d",
"text": "If the rules are unfair,stupid and causing more harm than good.... I'd argue the opposite. Taxi companies regulated themselves into a protected business with no competition and no chance of competition. This hinders customers and puts all the power into the hands of the cab companies. I'm not saying Uber is in the right with everything, but your not gonna see an ounce of sympathy from Me towards the cab companies and the cities that let that shit happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f61a483f3abd7167d55892db707d3af",
"text": "The taxi industry operates differently in every jurisdiction. I live in Vancouver BC and the taxi business here is archaic (think transportation before deregulation) so I would welcome Uber as an alternative. There is a reason a license to operate a cab in Vancouver is worth $500,000+ each. Monopolies, bitch.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c2c9c130645d49832b4a83c7a1b772d",
"text": "I don't know if vanilla beans are traded on any organized exchange, and if they are, it's probably extremely obscure and very hard to access without having both of a lot of money and in-country connections. Edit: no, they're not. So there is no real way to short them. https://www.ft.com/content/e0e2fc16-28db-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c?mhq5j=e2",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fac14afc592b93b8ce9f478f10e9464",
"text": "I really appreciate the long response! You clearly have more knowledge than me in regards to the finance end of the business. That said, is there so much money/debt tied up in taxi licenses and medallions that it would create even a mini financial market crash? If so, how would we (investors) profit from the situation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b046a4c030911bee82874c63f20729e7",
"text": "\"> They trick people into rigged contracts, which requires paying uber even if you quit. So your time spent making money at another job belongs to uber. Can you link me to some info on this? This is bizarre. >What makes it \"\"sort of\"\" slavery is the foolishness of entering the contract. lol\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ae0e0a8e5f5356c6f2c12e76530002",
"text": "\"There are multiple problems with your claim. Firstly, in some places Uber and Lyft *are* regulated. In California, they are regulated as [Transportation Network Companies](http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/TNC/TNC_Licenses_Issued.htm). Secondly, I don't think this particular practice (calling in fake rides) is something that is prohibited by regulations, or at least enforced, for existing industries like taxis and livery cars. I have heard anecdotes that taxi companies routinely do the same thing, and that this is why taxis often don't show up if you call and request one. I think your attribution of this practice to \"\"unregulated capitalism\"\" is misguided.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f08ece9b46dd5e98c99a0bf2c47f770a",
"text": "Yeah, too subjective of a question I shorted BP last year during the deep water crisis, using a leveraged account 20 times larger than the amount of cash I actually had, instantly profitable. I was long Freddie Mac in March 2009 and that took several months to turn to move and turned a 100% gain I've flipped penny stocks trading at .0001 cents, bought a few million shares and sold them at .0002 cents. Sometimes instantly, sometimes over several months because they were illiquid I'm primarily a derivatives trader right now, which I did not know about or understand less than a year ago. Dont have crazy targets, that how you will blow up your account. Have meticulously calculated plans. Also you need to determine what kind of trader you are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d176e6876f0d0cb1f7de9fffd323ed2",
"text": "I don't have a smartphone, so when I was in San Francisco, I used a cab driver. He was really friendly, took me to where I needed to go and I called him back the next day to take me to the airport. He said that he was going to protest at the state capital against Uber with some of this fellow drivers. He said that they didn't require any sort of driving tests or insurance, and that made them extremely unsafe and unfair. I'm all for disruptive business models, but I'm really unsure what separates these people from traditional taxi companies other than having a cool app. They may live and die with regulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef18299621646b2cd361cf1313bf5a04",
"text": "> A short position also loses money if the stock just appreciates more slowly than the broader market, which is one way an overvaluation can correct itself. Is there a derivative based on the literal second derivative (acceleration) of the stock price? If so, you'd be able to short those, yes?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
92b4e65d8ae68ab85bc24d5db4aeea25
|
How can I improve my auto insurance score?
|
[
{
"docid": "5ab48c779ae9997d4e92f5d4326177f0",
"text": "Move to a small town in an insurance friendly state. - Certian states like Florida are considered high risk for doing business for insurance companies. Get a (relatively)new midsize sedan in white, tan, or brown. These colors are the least likely to get stolen and the modern midsized sedan is considered the safest vehicles to drive. Drive less than 100 miles a month - The less you drive the less likely you are to be involved in an accident Go 9 years with no claims, tickets, or late payments and maintain a valid drivers license and Insurance. Drivers who go for long periods with out incident are more likely to be safe drivers. Have an income in upper middle class. Drivers in this bracket tend to be statistically safer drivers and are the least likely to be involved in fraud.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab8ad3914e9ced9d72270d68dca2c20f",
"text": "Auto Insurance score is in no way related to your driving habits, instead it is based on your credit usage. You are often punished for having more than one or two hard inquires in a year and they also frown upon having many lines of credit even though that helps your credit utilization.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f8d360bbfa515fcd8bcf8cda182b071",
"text": "As a recent college grad who switched to his own car insurance, many of the things I did myself are reflected here. The #1 thing I did was find out what coverages I had, what coverages some friends of mine had (car enthusiasts mostly - they're the most informed on this stuff), and then figured out what kind of coverages I wanted. From there, I went around getting quotes from anyone and everyone and eventually built out a sizeable spreadsheet that made it obvious which company was going to offer me the best rate at a given coverage level. Something else to remember - not all insurance companies look at past accidents and violations (speeding, etc) the same. In my search, I found some have a 3-year scope on accidents and violations, while others were as much as 5 years. So, if your driving record isn't a shining example (mine isn't perfect), you could potentially save money by considering insurance through a company that will see fewer violations/incidents than another because of the size of their scope. I ended up saving $25/mo by choosing a company that had a 3-year scope, which was on the cusp of when my last violation/incident occurred. Insurance companies will also give out discounts for younger drivers based on GPA average. If you have kids and they maintain a high GPA, you might be able to get a discount there. Not all companies offer it, so if they do it's worth finding out how much it is",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fde7f24cd4ccccf7f3fbe82607eb1e79",
"text": "Answer all of their questions honestly and as accurately as you can, but don't stress too much about it. If you don't know the answer to something, ask the insurance agent what it means; that's what they're there for. (If you're doing this online, email the support, or the 'live chat' feature many of them have. Or, don't do it online, if you feel better having an agent in person; nowadays, most of the major insurers are similar on price so it's not a massive savings to skip the agent.) As far as whether it's important to pick a specific insurer - that's really your call. Read reviews, understanding that folks with bad experiences are more likely to write reviews than the 90% of folks who get no benefit from homeowner's insurance. You need to make the decision as to how important reputation and ease of claims process is versus price. That's why there are multiple insurers, after all - you can decide how important it is to you. It sounds like you would prefer a simpler claims process, so perhaps you should go with someone who is known for an easier claims process (understanding that no insurer is always going to agree with every claimant 100%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf72b9016862b87ac26ec47661af81e8",
"text": "If you're wealthy why do you think they wouldn't sue you for the money you owed?? And, as sunk818 says, credit scores can influence insurance costs. While you could self-insure your home you generally can't self-insure when it comes to liability coverage on a car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd359957c211621d936ff617b49d198a",
"text": "Agree with the comment, 760 is a good score. The average score is less than 700 and average score for your age group is even lower. (Source: https://www.creditkarma.com/trends/age) Just keep paying your credit card bills on time. You could also ask for increases in your credit limits on your existing credit cards, which may increase your score, but could decrease it in the short term depending on how your credit card company looks at your credit history in the process. (Source: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2014/06/27/3-ways-to-increase-your-credit-card-spending-limit)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edbaae5bb9235c484810f90b9920dd85",
"text": "Pay it off. If you do so, you have the liberty to drop or reduce a portion of your collision auto insurance coverage (keeping uninsured motorist). This could potentially save you a lot more than 20 bucks over the next six months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07f3d7d55faa849cd46667f837f89792",
"text": "First, you need to be aware that the credit score reported by Mint is Equifax Credit Score. Equifax Credit Score, like FICO, Vantagescore, and others, is based on a proprietary formula that is not publicly available. Every score is calculated with a different formula, and can vary from each other widely. Lenders almost exclusively only use FICO scores, so the score number you have is likely different than the score lenders will use. Second, understand that the advice you see from places like Mint and Credit Karma will almost always tell you that you don't have enough credit card accounts. The reason for this is that they make their money by referring customers to credit card applications. They have a financial interest in telling you that you need more credit cards. Finally, realize that credit score is just a number, and is only useful for a limited number of things. Higher is better to a point, and after that, you get no benefit from increasing your score. My advice to you is this: Don't stress out about your credit score, especially a free score reported by Credit Karma or Mint. If you really have a desire to find out your score, you can pay FICO to get your actual score, but it's not cheap. You can also sometimes get your FICO score by applying for a loan and asking the lender. I last saw my FICO scores (there were three, one from each credit bureau) when I applied for a mortgage a couple of years ago, and the mortgage rep gave them to me for free. But honestly, knowing your score doesn't do much for you, as the best way to increase it is to simply make your payments on time and wait. Don't give in to bad conventional advice from places that are funded by the financial services industry. The thing that makes your credit score go up is a long history of paying your bills on time. Despite what you commonly read about credit scores, I'm not convinced that you can radically boost your scores by having lots of open credit card accounts. At the time I applied for my last mortgage, I only had 2 open credit cards (still true), and the oldest open account was about 1.5 years old. The average of my 3 scores was just over 800. But I've been paying my bills on time for at least 20 years now. Only get credit cards that you actually want, and close the ones you don't want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "718a647db098e2f1212a0d763e4bc22c",
"text": "\"Here's what you do without, on the negative side, just for balance: A bill: When I last had comprehensive insurance, it cost something like 3-4% of the value of the car per annum. (Obviously ymmv enormously but I think that's somewhere near the middle of the range and I'm not especially risky.) So, compared to the total depreciation and running costs of the car, it's actually fairly substantial. Over the say 10 years I might keep that car, it adds up to a fair slice of what it will take to buy a replacement. Financial crisis costs: I don't know about you, but my insurance went up something like 30% in recent years, despite the value-insured and the risk going down, said by the insurer to be due to market turmoil. So, at least hundreds of dollars is just kind of frictional loss, and I'd rather not pay it. Wrangling with the insurer: if you have insurance and a loss, you have to persuade them to pay out, perhaps document the original conditions or the fault, perhaps argue about whether their payment is fair. I've done this for small (non-automotive) claims, and it added up to more hassle than the incident itself. Obviously all insurers will claim they're friendly to deal with but until you actually have a big claim you never know. Moral hazard: I know I'm solely responsible for not having my car crashed or stolen. Somehow that just feels better. Free riders: I've seen people \"\"fudge\"\" their insurance claims so that things that shouldn't have been covered were claimed to be. You might have too. Buy insurance and you're paying for them. Choice: Insurers are typically going to make the decision for you about whether a claim is repairable or not, and in my experience are reluctant or refuse to just give you the cash amount of the claim. (See also, moral hazard.) Do it yourself and you can choose whether to live with it, make a smaller or larger repair, or replace the whole vehicle with a second hand one or a brand new one, or indeed perhaps do without a vehicle. A distraction: Hopefully by the time you've been working for a while, a vehicle is not a really large fraction of your net worth. If you lose 10% of your net worth it's not really nice but - well, you could easily have lost that off the value of your house or your retirement portfolio in recent years. What you actually need to insure is genuinely serious risks that would seriously change your life if they were lost, such as your ability to work. For about the same cost as insuring a $x car, you can insure against $x income every year for the rest of your life, and I think it's far more important. If I have a write-off accident but walk away I'll be perfectly happy. And, obviously, liability insurance is important, because being hit for $millions of liabilities could also have a serious impact. Coverage for mechanical failures: If your 8yo car needs a new transmission, insurance isn't going to help, yet it may cost more than the typical minor collision. Save the money yourself and you can manage those costs out of the same bucket. Flexibility: If you save up to replace your car, but some other crisis occurs, you can choose to put the money towards that. If you have car insurance but you have a family medical thing it's no help. I think the bottom line is: insure against costs you couldn't cope with by yourself. There are people who need a car but can just barely afford it, but if you're fortunate enough not to be in that case you don't really need comprehensive insurance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b303d2f98047b406c05fdfe635ca779c",
"text": "\"There's not a single answer here, as the premium you pay for car insurance depends on multiple factors, including (but not limited to): All these factors contribute to the likelihood of getting into an accident, and the expected damage from an accident. So just having an accident and making a claim will likely raise your premium (all else being equal), but whether or not it will be cheaper in the long run depends (obviously) on how much your premium goes up, which cannot determined without all of the facts. Your agent could tell you how much it would go up, but even making such an inquiry would likely be noted on your insurance record, and may cause your premium to go up (although probably not by as much). However, the point of insurance is to reduce the out-of-pocket expenses from future accidents, so the question to ask is: How likely am I to have another accident, and if I do, can I pay cash for it or will I need to offset some cost with an insurance claim. Do you risk making a claim and having your rates go up by more than $700 over the next 3-4 years (the rough time it takes for a \"\"surcharge\"\" to expire)? Or do you just pay for the repair out-of-pocket and keep your premiums lower?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38710ae492b0a4cd66cd64cc20d6c739",
"text": "The best thing you can do is shop around, and tell your current company that you're shopping. I had been with GEICO for years and recently discovered (while shopping for renter's insurance) that AllState offered the same coverage for a few hundred dollars less. When I called GEICO to cancel, they offered me an additional discount (for being a member of a credit union) that I hadn't received before. I still switched, but was sad that I hadn't been getting that extra discount just because I never asked if there were other discounts I might qualify for. This article by ChristianPF talks about some changes you can make to reduce auto insurance costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255ca961ae0f95b0d52c79a49f0c9953",
"text": "Buy a modest vehicle with a manageable payment. Keep the payment low enough ($200-300/month) to keep your DTI (Debt-To-Income) ratio clear. The short-term ding to your credit for new credit should disappear in 3-6 months (your time horizon). Having a mix of credit is part of the credit scoring model, so having an installment loan is not a bad thing. Relax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6049ea982c6dc34eeb8fa8d6e68ac1",
"text": "Some proportion of the costs of a policy have little to no relationship to miles driven. Think of costs of underwriting, and more especially sales/marketing/client acquisition costs (auto insurance isn't in the same league as non-term life insurance (where the commissions and other selling expenses typically exceed the first year's worth of premiums), but the funny TV ads and/or agent commissions aren't free), as well as general business overhead. Also, as noted by quid, some proportion of claim risk isn't correlated to distance covered (think theft, flood, fire, etc.). There are also differences in the miles that are likely to be driven by a non-commercial/vehicle-for-hire driver who puts 25k miles a year vs. one who puts 7k per year. The former is generally going to be doing more driving at higher speeds on less-congested freeways while the latter will be doing more of their driving on crowded urban roads. The former pattern generally has a lower expected value of claims both due to having fewer cars per road-mile, fewer intersections and driveways, and also having any given collision be more likely to result in a fatality (paralysis or other lifetime disability claims are generally going to exceed what the insurer would pay out on a fatality).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95587211afe5e5b916902cb7425ad3eb",
"text": "One that isn't typically mentioned: move. Rates are often higher in certain zip codes where there are more accidents and/or thefts. I cut my insurance nearly in half by moving. If you're looking at moving anyway, it's worth considering.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab252f1dce22980b61eddfe374b686c3",
"text": "\"> Let's just say the insurance industry knows a lot more about underwriting than you do. I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless statement. I work in insurance (first as a consultant, before 'retiring' to work in insurance distribution a few years ago), and I know that our industry frequently uses flawed or outdated methodologies due to the simple fact that insurance companies are very conservative and *very* resistant to change when it comes to changes to their core business. Unless you can show a direct, negative impact on the bottom line caused by the currently used method, you are unlikely to make any changes at all. In this case, if the entire US car insurance industry is using the same flawed system, it won't affect a single company if they also stick to it. Until 1996, before the current system was introduced, insurance companies in Germany used to rate liability insurance for cars (almost) exclusively by engine power output. The industry had known that this method was fundamentally flawed since at least the late 1980s (comprehensive and partial coverage had been rated by the 'new' system for a few years at this point, which had also taken years to work out), but it took additional years of planning, negotiations and cooperation by the entire industry to change to the new system for liability. So please, do not ever assume that \"\"the insurance companies are the experts, they know what they are doing!\"\". It might very well be the case that they are stuck with flawed/outdated systems simply because there is no sufficiently strong impulse to change what they do. The current Tesla rate adjustment situation is a wonderful example of this - it apparantly took AAA *5 years* since the Model S first came out to realise that their initial estimate was wrong (it seems unlikely that the accident rate or repair costs have suddenly changed over the last year) and take appropriate actions. By late 2013, there were easily enough Teslas on the road (about 20,000) to get realiable data, yet nothing happened for nearly another 4 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13a0e39315b53b0fd86165869dc586b9",
"text": "The length of time you have established credit does improve your credit score in the long run. As long as you can avoid paying interest, you might see if you can get a card with cash back rewards. I have one from Citi that sends me a $50 check every so often when I have enough rewards built up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5ab01540a1290a9e69d02e45f3e1821",
"text": "\"I assume there is a large amount of competition. Ask yourself: \"\"What makes you better or different from other drivers?\"\" If you have an answer, then make it more obvious to customers. If you do not have an answer, then make yourself better or different from other drivers and let customers know. Example: In Chiang Mai, you can get delicious street food just about anywhere. How do you separate yourself in a sea of strong competitors? One lady started wearing a cowboy hat, it was different. People take notice and remember the hat. People only remember the 'cowboy hat lady.' Now you can type into Google \"\"cowboy hat lady\"\" and her food stand comes up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e5c075808444b3079a84d19def23ea",
"text": "\"There is an economic, a social and a psychological side to the decision whether to buy insurance or not, and if yes, which one. Economically, as you say already in your question, an insurance is on average a net loss for the insured. The key word here is \"\"average\"\". If you know that there are many cancer cases in your family buy health insurance by all means; it's a sound investment. If you are a reckless driver make sure you have extensive coverage on your liability insurance. But absent such extra risks: Independently of somebody's wealth insurance should be limited to covering catastrophic events. What is often overlooked is that the insurance by all means should really cover those catastrophic events. For example the car liability minimums in many states are not sufficient. The typical upper middle class person could probably pay the 15k/30k/10k required in Arizona with a loan on their house; but a really catastrophic accident is simply not covered and would totally ruin that person and their family. Insuring petty damage is a common mistake: economically speaking, all insurances should have deductibles which are as high as one could afford to pay without feeling too much pain. That \"\"pain\"\" qualification has an economical and a social aspect. Of course any risk which materialized is an economical damage of some kind; perhaps now I can't buy the PS4, or the diamond ring, or the car, or the house, or the island which had caught my eye. I could probably do all these things, just perhaps without some extras, even if I had paid for insurance; so if I don't want to live with the risk to lose that possibility I better buy insurance. Another economical aspect is that the money may not be available without selling assets, possibly on short notice and hence not for the best price. Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that). The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured. Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fe3b9d9366d4c2d65bb80fdbbdbcfa0c
|
Are credit histories/scores international?
|
[
{
"docid": "648f6347d16224f43171a32628d4a67e",
"text": "Currently the credit history are not International but are local. Many countries don't have a concept of credit history yet. Having said that, if you are moving to US, depending on your history in your country, you can ask the same bank to provide you with a card and then start building history. For example in India I had a card with Citi Bank and when I moved to US for a short period, I was given a card based on my India Card, with equivalent credit in USD. If you are moving often internationally, it would make sense to Bank with a leading bank that provide services in geographies of your interest [Citi, HSBC, etc] and then in a new country approach these institutions to get you some starting credit for you to build a history.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "762f38a3a0d17031245925ce5ae08704",
"text": "\"It's not just that credit history is local; it's that it's a private business run for profit. The \"\"big three\"\" credit bureaus in the US are Experian, Equifax and Transunion. They collect information on debt usage and abuse from various companies in the US, and charge a fee to provide that information (and their judgement of you) to companies interested in offering you further credit. But there's nothing stopping a company from collecting international credit histories, or specialized credit histories either (for instance, there's a company called ChexSystems which focuses on retail purchase financing (mostly auto) and checking account abuse, while ignoring other types of lending). That being said, I don't know of any companies which currently collect international credit histories. Perhaps in Europe, with more nations in close geographic proximity, there would be, but not in North America.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9aca3ed9a7f0fbd96ff27dc29906f179",
"text": "Credit history is local, so when you move to the US you start with the blank slate. Credit history length is a huge factor, so in the first year expect that nobody would trust you and you may be refused credit or asked for deposits. I was asked for deposits at cell phone company and refused for store cards couple of times. My advice - get a secured credit card (that means you put certain sum of money as a deposit in the bank and you get credit equal to that sum of money) and if you have something like a car loan that helps too (of course, you shouldn't buy a car just for that ;) but if you're buying anyway, just know it's not only hurting but also helping when you pay). Once you have a year or two of the history and you've kept with all the payments, you credit score would be OK and everybody would be happy to work with you. In 4-5 years you can have excellent credit record if you pay on time and don't do anything bad. If you are working it the US, a lot of help at first would be to take a letter from your company on an official letterhead saying that you are employed by this and that company and are getting salary of this and that. That can serve as an assurance for some merchants that otherwise would be reluctant to work with you because of the absence of credit history. If you have any assets overseas, especially if they are held in a branch of international bank in US dollars, that could help too. In general, don't count too much on credit for first 1-2 years (though you'd probably could get a car loan, for example, but rates would be exorbitant - easily 10 percentage points higher than with good credit), but it will get better soon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8f00666597667cba3f609b5c26ee232",
"text": "Some countries in European Union are starting to implement credit history sharing, for example now history from polish bureau BIK and German Schufa are mutually available. Similar agreements are planned between polish BIK and bureaus in the Netherlands and United Kingdom.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5bf8916a07958f21f05d6bdb91a0000f",
"text": "\"First, a note of my personal experience: up until a year ago, my credit lines were composed exclusively of credit cards with perfect payment histories, and my credit score is fine. If you mean that credit cards have no impact on a person's credit score until they miss a payment, that is certainly not correct. FICO's website identifies \"\"payment history\"\" as 35% of your FICO score: 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. ... Credit payment history on many types of accounts Account types considered for payment history include: ... Details on late or missed payments (\"\"delinquencies\"\") and public record and collection items FICO® Scores consider: How many accounts show no late payment A good track record on most of your credit accounts will increase your FICO® Scores. Clearly, from the last item alone, we see that credit lines (a category which includes credit cards) with no late payments is a factor in computing your FICO score, and certainly other credit bureaus behave similarly. Possibly the banker was trying to explain some other point, like \"\"If you're careful not to spend more on your card than you have in the bank, you can functionally treat your credit card as a debit line,\"\" but did so in a confusing way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b64b7488d616ae026c37b3cf64919b2",
"text": "In addition to the already good answers: I am assuming you are playing a long game and have no specific need for a high credit score in the next couple of years. This list is just good practice that will raise you score.",
"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": "fc8923bef2dbee376d2121e54cd03757",
"text": "Yes, they do. Generally though you'll only see it on one or two reports. With regards to the impact on your credit score. Hard inquiries only stay on your credit for 2 years, after that they fall off. For most credit scores (specifically FICO) they only have an impact for 1 year after their date. If you have a few in the same 30 day period FICO will lump these into 1 pull to allow you to shop around for credit/loans. They also have a low to medium impact on your score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71c5d6bcf38f61d6e21be33a3a5e1dd3",
"text": "Sorry. As far as I know, a person's SS is the only way to establish credit. This is the first thing they ask whenever you apply for any service in the US.",
"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": "3a0c5da5d45000dd5a41105eb72828b9",
"text": "The reason you would want to report to all three is because lenders don't usually query all three. Thus, it may be that your negative mark will be missed by a future lender because that lender didn't query the agency you chose to report to. Generally, it is cheaper to report to more agencies than to query more agencies, and since those reporting are also those querying, it is in their best interest to continue reporting to all agencies, and expecting others to do the same. Each agency calculates the score independently based on the information reported to that agency. Thus only reporting a negative item to Experian will mean that TransUnion and Equifax scores for the same person will be higher.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6520e3b663c9d07ae98d430a59c8934e",
"text": "I talked to the director of equity research at an international us based bank. He said that with mifid ii would force them to unbundle research fees in the US. It would be very difficult to have a different fee structure only for UK clients.",
"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": "99cc24666a7edbd24d598e9a9a0bfd1e",
"text": "I never received any bad treatment as a foreigner. I have dinner with my landlord once a month, and go to the bar with the guy that sold me the plan. Why the fuck would you take out a loan in a foreign country? If you need to so badly, then you obviously don't have the collateral to do so and that's why they are turning you away. Homogenous countries are naturally xenophobic, get over it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "872d37b659b196edc2b87bc5f87f3ac7",
"text": "It won't hurt your credit rating. I wouldn't worry about it. The company can certainly pursue debt collections across borders but unless its a massive sum.. they will write it off. Now.. what the right thing to do is to take care of it... 1. for karma's sake and 2. so you don't make a bad name for foreigners.",
"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": "160c33cef70d54dbee73af39f0c42327",
"text": "No. I have several that I haven't used in a year or so (legacy of the time when they gave you money to sign up :-)), and credit rating's something over 800 last I checked.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11b39e366f3d2845e53b28c60886fc9e",
"text": "\"This question has the [united kingdom] tag, so the information about USA or other law and procedures is probably only of tangential use. Except for understanding that no, this is not something to ignore. It may well indicate someone trying to use your id fraudulently, or some other sort of data-processing foul-up that may adversely impact your credit rating. The first thing I would do is phone the credit card company that sent the letter to inform them that I did not make his application, and ask firmly but politely to speak to their fraud team. I would hope that they would be helpful. It's in their interests as well as yours. (Added later) By the way, do not trust anything written on the letter. It may be a fake letter trying to lure or panic you into some other sort of scam, such as closing your \"\"compromised\"\" bank account and transferring the money in it to the \"\"fraud team\"\" for \"\"safety\"\". (Yes, it sounds stupid, but con-men are experts at what they do, and even finance industry professionals have fallen victim to such scams) So find a telephone number for that credit card company independently, for example Google, and then call that number. If it's the wrong department they'll be able to transfer you internally. If the card company is unhelpful, you have certain legal rights that do not cost much if anything. This credit company is obliged to tell you as an absolute minimum, which credit reference agencies they used when deciding to decline \"\"your\"\" application. Yes, you did not make it, but it was in your name and affected your credit rating. There are three main credit rating agencies, and whether or not the bank used them, I would spend the statutory £2 fee (if necessary) with each of them to obtain your statutory credit report, which basically is all data that they hold about you. They are obliged to correct anything which is inaccurate, and you have an absolute right to attach a note to your file explaining, for example, that you allege entries x,y, and z were fraudulently caused by an unknown third party trying to steal your ID. (They may be factually correct, e.g. \"\"Credit search on \"\", so it's possible that you cannot have them removed, and it may not be in your interests to have them removed, but you certainly want them flagged as unauthorized). If you think the fraudster may be known to you, you can also use the Data Protection Act on the company which write to you, requiring them to send you a copy of all data allegedly concerning yourself which it holds. AFAIR this costs £10. In particular you will require sight of the application and signature, if it was made on paper, and the IP address details, if it was made electronically, as well as all the data content and subsequent communications. You may recognise the handwriting, but even if not, you then have documentary evidence that it is not yours. As for the IP address, you can deduce the internet service provider and then use the Data Protection act on them. They may decline to give any details if the fraudster used his own credentials, in which case again you have documentary evidence that it was not you ... and something to give the police and bank fraud investigators if they get interested. I suspect they won't be very interested, if all you uncover is fraudulent applications that were declined. However, you may uncover a successful fraud, i.e. a live card in your name being used by a criminal, or a store or phone credit agreement. In which case obviously get in touch with that company a.s.a.p. to get it shut down and to get the authorities involved in dealing with the crime. In general, write down everything you are told, including phone contact names, and keep it. Confirm anything that you have agreed in writing, and keep copies of the letters you write and of course, the replies you receive. You shouldn't need any lawyer. The UK credit law puts the onus very much on the credit card company to prove that you owe it money, and if a random stranger has stolen your id, it won't be able to do that. In fact, it's most unlikely that it will even try, unless you have a criminal record or a record of financial delinquency. But it may be an awful lot of aggravation for years to come, if somebody has successfully stolen your ID. So even if the first lot of credit reference agency print-outs look \"\"clean\"\", check again in about six weeks time and yet again in maybe 3 months. Finally there is a scheme that you can join if you have been a victim of ID theft. I've forgotten its name but you will probably be told about it. Baically, your credit reference files will be tagged at your request with a requirement for extra precautions to be taken. This should not affect your credit rating but might make obtaining credit more hassle (for example, requests for additional ID before your account is opened after the approval process). Oh, and post a letter to yourself pdq. It's not unknown for fraudsters to persuade the Post Office to redirect all your mail to their address!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
92deae6e188182ea2aa3bae12d25e155
|
What exactly is a wealth management platform?
|
[
{
"docid": "f2f2b0c9cd33740896b9f7479d98eaa3",
"text": "It's a tech buzzword. OK I'm being a bit glib. A Wealth Management Platform is a software system designed to help people track their investment portfolios and research new investments. Sometimes, trusts and small investment firms will use these platforms as well but they will often have more specialized separate systems for portfolio tracking and research. There is a large variety of platforms out there all trying to be the best platform for you... or someone else. Some will have websites and be open to all with money and some will be applications and only target some types of investors. Some will have robo-advising (Wealthfront), a human adviser (Merrill) or have none at all. Some will have nice graphical tools to track your portfolio or great research tools or both (I try not to recommend products on this site). Some can be designed to nudge you into their ideology (Vanguard). All, though, have a technology team behind them to make investing easier for you (or their investment advisers) or to sell you their products. You get the picture.",
"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": "2cef3bd918fe90b660ef7b73873a40c6",
"text": "A few months ago, I met with the founder of Wealthsimple. As someone with higher than average about both trading and investing, I asked him whether his funds would be able to add more value to my Couch Potato portfolio not in terms of returns but rather in terms of management fees. I also asked him this: if I wish to have a portfolio that has a specific % allocation towards emerging markets, would I be able to do so with Wealthsimple. The answer to both of the above questions was that I'd be better off investing by myself. I'd venture a guess and say that most people on SE Money wouldn't require a service such as Wealthsimple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7ee3420c962c48e9922a2fe399011b",
"text": "The simple answer is: YES, the JP Morgan emerging markets equity fund is a mutual fund. A mutual fund is a pooling of money from investors to invest in stocks and bonds. Investors in mutual funds arrive there in different ways. Some get there via their company 401K, others by an IRA, still others as a taxable account. The fund can be sold by the company directly or through a broker. You can also have a fund of funds. So the investors are other funds. Some investors are only indirect investors. They are owed a pension by a past or current employer, and the pension fund has invested in a mutual fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87fd0ffbacf2f9c408959b74bf24807b",
"text": "I interned at a wealth management firm that used very active momentum trading, 99% technicals. Strictly ETFs (indexes, currencies, commodities, etc), no individual equities. They'd hold anywhere from 1-4 weeks, then dump it as soon as the chart starts turning over. As soon as I get enough capital I'm adopting their same exact strategy, it's painfully easy",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7efc2dd021ddf9a2a03b9622a11cf2a",
"text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b027f0a256497e1482eeda873c4335b",
"text": "Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3). Terms don't change depending an a shareholder's situation. EquityZen is a professional company and values all of the shareholders that use the platform. It’s a marketplace so the market sets the price. In other situations, you may be at the mercy of just one large buyer. This can happen when you’re facing a big tax bill on exercise but don’t have the cash (because you have the stock). 4). EquityZen doesn't offer loans so this is a non issue. 5). Not EquityZen! EquityZen creates a clean break from the economics. It’s not uncommon for the loan structures to use an interest component as well as some other complications, like upside participation and and also a liquidation preference. EquityZen strives for a simple structure where you’re not on the hook for the downside and you’ve transferred all the upside as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b225057ac5a2daf8508875ece3977755",
"text": "\"For a job doing that kind of stuff, what is PREFERRED is 4 year undergrad at ivy league school + 2 year MBA at ivy league school, and then several more years of experience, which you can sort of get by interning while in school this will of course saddle you with debt, which is counterintuitive to your plans basically, the easy way up is percentage based compensation. without knowing the right people, you will get a piss poor salary regardless of what you do, in the beginning. so portfolio managers earn money by percentage based fees, and can manage millions and billions. real estate agents can earn money by percentage based commissions if they close a property and other business venture/owners can do the same thing. the problem with \"\"how to trade\"\" books is that they are outdated by the time they are published. so you should just stick with literature that teaches a fundamental knowledge of the products you want to trade/make money from. ultimately regardless of how you get/earn your initial capital, you will still need to be an individual investor to grow your own capital. this has nothing to do with being a portfolio manager, even highly paid individuals on wall street are in debt to lavish expenditures and have zero capital for their own investments. hope this helps, you really need to be thinking in a certain way to just quickly deduce good ideas from bad ideas\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b163e05a8bc82fc2d2c28d0c5c8e1f6",
"text": "\"You need to hope that a fund exists targeting the particular market segment you are interested in. For example, searching for \"\"cloud computing ETF\"\" throws up one result. You'd then need to read all the details of how it invests to figure out if that really matches up with what you want - there'll always be various trade-offs the fund manager has to make. For example, with this fund, one warning is that this ETF makes allocations to larger firms that are involved in the cloud computing space but derive the majority of their revenues from other operations Bear in mind that today's stock prices might have already priced in a lot of future growth in the sector. So you might only make money if the sector exceeds that predicted growth level (and vice versa, if it grows, but not that fast, you could lose money). If the sector grows exactly as predicted, stock prices might stay flat, though you'd still make a bit of money if they pay dividends. Also, note that the expense ratios for specialist funds like this are often quite a bit higher than for \"\"general market\"\" funds. They are also likely to be traded less frequently, which will increase the \"\"bid-ask\"\" spread - i.e. the cost of buying into and getting out of these funds will be higher.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ac2bcd3dbc3e67598efa988acae9373",
"text": "Why would you bet it’s Sun Capital Partners? OP said it’s a firm that specializes in buying software companies. Sun is a generalist investor. Tech-specific funds include, but are not limited to: Vista, Thoma Bravo, Insight Venture Partners, JMI Equity, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "796b43b97f737d12f389d6b75da86f48",
"text": "\"According to what little information is available currently, this fund is most akin to an actively managed exchange traded fund rather than an investment trust. An investment trust is an actively managed, closed-end fund that is tradeable on the stock market. \"\"Closed-end\"\" means that there are a fixed number of shares available for trading, so if you wish to buy or sell shares in a closed-end fund you need to find someone willing to sell or buy shares. \"\"Actively managed\"\" means that the assets are selected by the fund managers in the belief that they will perform well. This is in contrast to a \"\"passively managed\"\" fund which simply tracks an underlying index. The closed-end nature of investment trusts means that the share price is not well correlated to the value of the underlying assets. Indeed, almost all UK investment trusts trade at a significant discount to their net asset value. This reflects their historic poor performance and relatively weak liquidity. Of course there are some exceptions to this. Examples of open-end funds are unit trust (US = mutual funds) and ETFs (exchange traded funds). They are \"\"open-end\"\" funds in the sense that the number of shares/units available will change according to demand. Most importantly, the price of a share/unit will be strongly correlated to the net asset value of the underlying portfolio. In general, for an open-end fund, if the net asset value of the fund is X and there are Y shares/units outstanding, then the price of a share/unit will be X/Y. Historic data shows that passively managed funds (index trackers) \"\"always\"\" outperform actively managed funds in the long term. One of the big issues with actively managed funds is they have relatively high management fees. The Peoples Trust will be charging about 1% with a promise that this should come down over time. Compare this to a fee of 0.05% on a large, major market index tracking ETF. Further, the 1% headline fee being touted by Peoples Trust is a somewhat misleading, since they are paying their employees bonuses with shares in the fund. This will cause dilution of the net asset value per share and can be read as addition management fees by proxy. Since competent fund managers will demand high incomes, bonus shares could easily double the management fees, depending on the size of the fund. In summary, history has shown that the promises of active fund managers rarely (if ever) come to fruition. Personally, I would not consider this to be an attractive investment and would look more towards a passively managed major market index ETF with low management fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eec00fac4023bd89d4a52ab034993c41",
"text": "If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7accc45fe4cc1332be12c3be038ef716",
"text": "\"I assume it's some kind of service that will help me make more money somehow No, wealth management is helping you keep the wealth you have, not to become more wealthy. Insurance sales, portfolio management, estate planning, and trust formation (to avoid estate taxes) are common services associated with \"\"wealth management\"\". Wikipedia already has a pretty good definition.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2751206de3d1f06240c973f6fadffc14",
"text": "My go-to response whenever anyone asks me this is the Monevator table of platform fees. It looks a little complicated at first, but scroll past the table for a couple of paragraphs of useful info to help narrow down your search. The general tone of the page is geared more towards investors in index funds, but the fees on share-dealing are right there in the table too. There are also special notes if there are discounts for frequent traders and that sort of thing, so not too much passive-investor elitism on show!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b611488d1d23e35fd8b1e3ed248e14f",
"text": "\"Asset management typically refers to the \"\"product\"\" group e.g. Mutual fund, etf, etc., like invesco offering qqq or some emerging market mutual fund. Capital management is more vague and can refer to a wide range of financial products and services including asset management and stuff like ptfl planning, wealth advisory etc. That said they are both used interchangeably and not like anyone would correct you if you used one vs the other...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b69da8ccb25538fbfd19ff9b2a4dfad9",
"text": "\"I just found out my financial advisors are not fiduciaries. they manage a very large fund and have a board of trustees. they have a 30-year track record of great results. I asked why would the wealth managers not be fiduciaries if they will only ever act in the best interest of the clients and was told \"\"I would assume because they don't have to be, the assets aren't theirs, they belong to the fund\"\" Should I run?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8",
"text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f088c18e9c5cea697ab42427b009d625
|
Shifting income to 401k
|
[
{
"docid": "1ac3e3ee4e04c1252026071879b257dc",
"text": "This will be difficult to achieve. It can be done, but it's very rare to have an agreement where your employer is willing to max out your contribution limit unless you are a partner in the business or a family relation. In this situation the extra employer money would probably come from a profit sharing contribution. If your employer increases your match, others are correct that your employer would have to increase the match for everyone. Not so with a profit sharing contribution. This is assuming 2 things though: Both of those are BIG if's, and I'd say 99% of the time it's not gonna happen for either of those two reasons. Your chances are better if you don't own >5% of the company, don't make over $120,000/year, and are related to you employer. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e846532be43422142d1755b58895a87",
"text": "Assumptions made for this answer, they may not be true for anybody: For the numbers part we will assume you are single and make 96,000 per year. Unknowns: how long you have to wait post accumulation to convince the bank you really do make $96,000 per year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2b73da30654362e0cc93d27591559691",
"text": "Post-86 After tax contributions to a 401k are after tax. The earnings on that money is taxable, but not the contributions. This means: You'll have $15,000 in the 401k and $10,000 is considered after-tax and $5,000 is considered pre-tax. The after-tax portion can be converted to a Roth IRA without paying taxes or penalties. New in September 2014 The IRS has made substantial changes that now enable this to happen. You can request a distribution from your 401k provider where they divide the money into pre-tax and after-tax funds. In my example, you'd get a check for $10,000 that you could send to a Roth IRA and a check for $5,000 you could add to a traditional Roll-over IRA. Neither of those would be taxable events and you'd end with a Roth IRA with $10K and a Traditional, Rollover IRA with $5K in it. Notes:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7ba2b2bd126f15e6716b0aae7922024",
"text": "Too long for a comment - It's great that you are saving to the match on the 401(k). Does your company offer a Roth 401(k)? If so, you might consider that, instead. From the numbers you offered, you are likely in the 15% bracket now, but will find you move to 25% in years to come. The 2014 tax rates are out and how the 15% bracket ending at $36,900. (Over $47,000 gross income). I'd rather see you pay tax at 15% now, and use pre-tax accounts as your income rises. If the Roth is available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52ac5428aefb5e55a7576108668702e0",
"text": "Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86e0bb3dc4107664219376ebcca5c4d4",
"text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d2d3a8f04171516b995c741a5a620af",
"text": "Assuming your only income is withdrawals from the 401k, the thing that determines the tax rate on your 401k withdrawals is how much money you draw out of the 401k in a single tax year. The money counts as income when you take it out. If you withdraw $100,000 from the 401k in a single year, you'll be in a higher tax bracket than if you withdraw only $30,000 in that year, but your earnings in previous years are irrelevant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dddeefab58515aa461298ae819ed1ce",
"text": "401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7ca42754f8dbcf566f746c495e6325d",
"text": "Take The 20k and transfer it to the new employer 401k. You then can take a loan and accomplish the same thing. By the time you pay the tax and 10% penalty, that withdrawal will be worth just over half. The same half you can borrow out, pay yourself the interest and not lose out on 50 years of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e32eb3044899febf97d41eb6b0bd7dd",
"text": "The 60 day pay back rule of a distribution your are referring to is a reportable IRS rule so you won't be able to circumvent that by opening your own company with its own 401K and borrowing the funds from there. Failure to accurately report to the IRS leads to fines and possible jail time. It's not advisable to withdraw from a retirement account but if you really need the money then you can move the funds to a Rollover IRA at the new broker/dealer, or custodian etc. Once you withdraw funds, the plan sponsor has to abide by a mandatory 20% tax withholding on the distribution, you'll be hit with a 10% tax penalty for early withdraw and you'll have to report the distribution as income when you file your personal income taxes. The move from a 401K to a Rollover however is legal and has no tax implications or penalties (besides possible closing fees at the old account) - that is until you decide to withdraw from it assuming you are under age 59 1/2. Regarding your last point, 401Ks are administered by 3rd parties. You wouldn't be opening up any accounts directly with them necessarily. Best advice? Get a Financial Advisor in your area. I recommend going with an advisor who is backed by independent broker-dealer. Independent broker dealers don't offer their own investment products therefore don't push their advisors to sell you their 'in-house' products like big banks. Here's a good article on using Rollover funds to start a venture: http://www.ehow.com/how_6789743_rollover-directed-ira-start-business.html Here is a resource guide direct from the IRS (you can CTRL+F for any specific topics) http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/401%28k%29-Resource-Guide---Plan-Participants---General-Distribution-Rules",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b801131a9448b8cb4962570767f6207f",
"text": "Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7246080679e57da969988ad366823779",
"text": "(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17d8e4f29e00cd50db0ad51da51ed795",
"text": "\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6bc92aee3c062df68dba5a5407131de",
"text": "My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d9bfd7e1cf7f1a4b622862b0770d9e1",
"text": "Don't steal from the 401k. If you take the money out, you'll pay 28% in taxes and 10% in penalties -- only getting $12,960 out. Before you do anything, consult an online refi calculator to make sure you'll be in the house beyond the break-even point. With the numbers you've given and some reasonable guesses I made, it looks like you'll break even within a year. If your new employer's plan allows for loans, roll it into the new plan. Based on what you say you're putting in, you should be able to take a loan out of about $15-20k, which would get you to your LTV goal. Before you do this, calculate: and make sure you will comfortably be able to handle all of the payments. Make sure you're aware of the loan terms on your 401k loan. Understand the penalties associated with failing to make timely payments. Finally, beware of sinking all of your liquid cash into this -- how will you handle an emergency that comes up soon after closing on the new loan before you have a chance to rebuild your emergency fund?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5aa979140c977b298717a423bd1af39",
"text": "\"I don't think there's a rule -- (I can't comment) but Brick cited IRS rules...but IMO Brick missed one thing -- @ashur668 is not looking for a distribution, but is looking for a rollover. My best guess: that this part of the ruleset is not well defined, and your (and my) employer have chosen to interpret any withdrawl as a \"\"distribution\"\", even if better characterized a rollover. A few months ago, I went so far as to explore if I could use a loophole -- my company had just gone through a merger; I was hoping I could rollover some or maybe all of my 401k to my IRA (I remember now, it would have been everything before starting roth 401k contributions). My company asserted this was not permitted, and further asserted that the rumors I had heard were mistaken that when we went through a company spin-off a few years before, that nobody under 59 1/2 was permitted to roll over. I did a quick search and found IRS topic 413 As far as I can tell, this topic is silent on the matter at hand. Topic 413 referred me to IRS Publication 575, where I started looking at the section on rollovers. I read some of it then got bored. Note that we're one step removed -- we are reading IRS publications and interpretations of IRS rules. I don't know that anybody here has read the actual tax law. There may be something in there that prevents companies from rolling over before 59 1/2 that is not well codified in IRS publications.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8fded8029447d6371ae0dc5bccd7432",
"text": "Withdrawals from a traditional 401(k) plan are always treated as cash income and the taxable portion is taxed at ordinary income tax rates, even if the money was held in stocks within the 401(k) plan and the amount withdrawn is equal to whatever capital gains you made by selling the stock within the 401(k) plan. If your plan permits you to take the distribution as stock shares (transferred to your taxable brokerage account), then, for tax purposes, it is treated as if you took a distribution of cash equal to the market price of the shares as of the day of the distribution and promptly bought the same number of shares in your brokerage account. And yes, if the 401(k) plan assets in your ex-employer's plan consists solely of pretax contributions and the earnings thereon, then the entire distribution is ordinary taxable income regardless of whether you sold the stock within the 401(k) plan or took a distribution of stock from the plan and promptly (or after a few days) sold it. The capital gains or losses (if any) from such a sale are, of course, outside the 401(k) plan and taxable accordingly. Finally, the 10% penalty for premature withdrawal from a traditional 401(k) will also apply if you are not 59.5 years of age or older (or maybe 55 since you are separated from service), and it will be computed on the entire distribution.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8b1dec7b8a4b48791fb21e7bbcbcd834
|
Checks not cashed
|
[
{
"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": "7d886d70fde7e58daf8a86ac00e1884c",
"text": "Nowadays, all checks you write will not be send to your bank anymore, but instead the bank where they get deposited does an ACH from your bank. That implies that not allowing this to happen, your bank would not be able to honor any checks you wrote (without enforcing paper check delivery in the mail, but the Check21 bill does not allow such enforcing anymore). Basically, your bank would not be able to do business with anyone. The obvious conclusion is that no such bank exists.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73f5e6a099898a75ebca0e1e112713da",
"text": "The legal department at the Bank left me a message telling me that the bank check was paid & the recipient got the funds. Call up the bank and find out who the recipient was. Generally it can only be cashed by the person whose name is on it - the original business partner to whom it was intended. It is unlikely to be cashed by the attorney, unless he misrepresented the facts to the bank and got the funds. My question is how could he have cashed it without the original bank check? The other possibility is your mom lost this check, went to the bank and requested them to cancel this and reissue a fresh banker's check and give it to the business partner - in which case the check you had was worthless. You would need to work with the bank and ask them for details. However without the details of the original bank check that you found, it would be difficult for the bank to help you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4be9577a4007b8e6fa6001cd6834502",
"text": "This question was asked three years ago, but now that it's 2017 there is actually a relatively easy, cheap and fast solution to at least the first half of your question. To cash the check: I've done this a half dozen times while abroad (from the US) without any problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67a6bbba7f13b2a6635133848ebf9e54",
"text": "I receive checks from my tenant. Also, from our medical reimbursement account. I'm sure there's an option somewhere to get that direct deposited, just haven't yet. My wife will write checks for school functions. Funny, they haven't cashed one since february, and this is the one item to look for every time I reconcile her account. A few select others don't take credit or debit cards. Our tailor (losing weight, needed pants pulled in), among others. The number of checks is surely down an order of magnitude over the years, but still not zero.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8b9bfb84f528142ec6933b5923e29e1",
"text": "\"Its a classic sign of fraud. The fraud is on you. You cashed the check not given to you, and not endorsed by the person its given to, so even if the check is legit you're still in trouble. There are many variations of this scheme, but the common thing is that the \"\"innocent\"\" third party is given a check to cash, and gives its own check or cash in return. The check ends up being forged, stolen, or otherwise invalid, but the cash/check the third party gave is long gone. Usually its cash, because its untraceable. You should wait at least a couple of weeks to make sure the check doesn't bounce. You might want to contact the check owner to verify its legit, and suggest to return the money, if it is not. You might also want to consult with an attorney. Bear in mind, that it might be reported to the authorities as a money laundering scheme (which it very well might be), and you'll have some explaining to do in this case, even if the check is legit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55fa76b19c951b25835e30a46c84191b",
"text": "\"Although banks do not have to honor checks that are more than six months old, they often do. Limit Noted on Check. Many large corporations put the length of time that a check is valid on the face of their checks. For example, a check may state, Valid for 90 days from this date\"\" or \"\"Not valid after 180 days.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bb6d5c5b9d7ef1d33fcf8f7c07e2e5a",
"text": "For the first case to occur, you need to have an agreement in place with the bank, this is called overdraft protection. It's done at a cost, but cheaper than the potential series of bounce fees. I've never heard of the second choice, partial payment. That's not to say that it's not possible. The payment not made is called a bounced check, you and the recipient will be harmed a fee. I believe it's a felony to write bad checks. Good to not write a check unless there's a positive balance taking that check into account. As Dilip suggests, ask your bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06d8ab67711673601cf3eaaf45b9519a",
"text": "\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \"\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\"\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a161cd359abe82b21405c3261005f3c4",
"text": "\"This may vary some by the state, but the general facts are consistent broadly. The elements of check fraud typically are: This means that not only do you have to have presented a check that is returned for insufficient funds, but you must have known at the time that it wouldn't be honored. It must typically also be given for present consideration, which is why the comments to the other answer correctly note that the post-dated check \"\"scam\"\" cooked up by the payday loan folks shouldn't generally be relevant under these laws; on the same site, they note the cases that are clearly not present consideration: So if I give you a check for $50 and it's returned for NSF because I screwed up my bank accounts and had all my money in savings, that's probably not fraud. But if I decide I really want a Tesla X and give Tesla Motors a check for $95,000, knowing I don't have $95,000, that's fraud. How the prosecutor proves knowledge is probably beyond the scope of Personal Finance and Money Stack Exchange, though I imagine it tends to commonly be done so by showing the person doesn't normally have that much money in their account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b7094cbe852a7f8c2f98dfcf51e0655",
"text": "\"When I receive a check from a customer whom I previously sent an invoice, I go to the customer report for that customer, click on the link \"\"Invoice\"\" for that invoice, then click on the Pay Invoice button (very far right side). I then do a customer report and see that there is no balance (meaning all the invoices have been paid). I don't process invoices using the same method you do. Instead I go to Business -> Customer -> Process Payment. From there I can select the applicable customer, and a list of unpaid invoices will come up. I've never experienced the issue you've described. On a related topic: are you posting your invoices? From experience that has caused issues for me; when you post the invoice it should show up in your Accounts Receivable (or whichever account you've designated), and after you process the payment the A/R should go down accordingly. When posting your invoice, you specify which account it gets posted to: So that account should show a balance once you have posted it: Then, when a client pays you, your cash will go up, and A/R will go down.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2b8102999ce0df2fd34e8a6903b8900",
"text": "The store wants their money back. It's understandable that they are hesitant to accept another check from you. So if you don't have the cash to pay them back, take your good check somewhere else to cash it, and use that money to pay back the store that you gave the bad check to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2acf99226ed0dfb29bdfd1c8bfa6d16",
"text": "\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c970e9e4752025f14c6a88559265046",
"text": "\"The store owners don't know what your intentions are. All they know is they gave you good cash for a bad check. Part of this is that you're paying for the bad acts of others in the past, and these people aren't in the business of trying to understand your intentions. If you show good faith by going in and paying whatever you can, it will go a long way toward getting them to work with you on the balance. I don't know if they'd have much of a criminal case if the check you gave them was clearly marked as \"\"void\"\" and you've shown a willingness to resolve the situation. Of course you can't blame them for not wanting to accept another check from you. Good old hard cash, even if it isn't the full amount, will be a better sign of your intent to repay the debt.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "c98556545e99fddd04d0a07dcf079005",
"text": "Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print. Years ago (25+) I wrote my account details on a shirt in protest to owing the IRS money, and my bank cashed it. They charged a penalty of some nominal amount, $20 or so for 'non-standard check format' or something like that. But, in fact, stupid young person rants aside, you may write a check out by hand on a piece of paper and it should clear. The missing factor is the magnetic ink. But, I often see a regular check with a strip taped to the bottom when the mag strip fails, proving that bad ink will not prevent a check from clearing. So long as the person trying to send you the funds isn't going to dispute the transaction (and the check is made out to you, so I suppose they couldn't even do that) this process should be simple. I see little to no risk so long as the image isn't intercepted along the way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8bc61228df7aea5ffdebd16b261beb06
|
Changing Bank Account Number regularly to reduce fraud
|
[
{
"docid": "4a43b5590ae06162d3a7946e1e638d36",
"text": "Couple of my friends went through a fraud agent who ran off with their money and the landlords were none the wiser. So it always pays to be a bit diligent. Are they a well known letting agents nationally ? Many agents do have different accounts to manage their properties. Yours seems a case as such probably i.e. they manage the property on behalf of the landlord so keeping their monies differentiated. Did you sign an agreement ? If yes go through what is written in the agreement, most of it is same in all agreements but have a look anyway. Check if there is mention of deposit protection scheme. One thing you could do is go to a bank to do the transfer, the same bank where the letting agent holds their account and confirm from them if it is really a personal account or a business account. I am not sure how possible it is, but doesn't hurt to ask. If it is a personal account, then fraud is the most possible cause. The sort code should tell you which branch and which bank. Or the best option is to ask the estate agents to show a recent statement of the bank account, where the money is to be deposited into. Some tips",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2a221dfeaebe9b45988e90b16481a57",
"text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. This is idiocy. They receive regular payments. They are asking the people who pay them to regularly change where their money is being sent. This increases their exposure to fraud dramatically as each time the account is changed, there is a risk it will be changed to an account they do not control. This is a huge red flag. Confirm that this is authentic and, if so, insist that they sign an agreement accepting all liability for the risks this crazy policy causes, otherwise, you should refuse to go through the effort of confirming new accounts and risking typing or communication errors on a regular basis. This is definitely a \"\"what were they thinking?!\"\" kind of thing. If it's not fake entirely. (This answer assumes that you were given a correct explanation, that they change it regularly believing that will reduce fraud.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b79473bb909aae086d116bb059928e44",
"text": "To be absolutely sure you should call the agent and check That said I have been renting accommodation through both agencies and directly through landlords for seven years (I live in London) and this is quite a common situation. It normally means that the deposit is being securely held by a third party so that it cannot be taken or depleted without the agreement of both parties. The deposit protection scheme ( https://www.depositprotection.com/ ) is one way that deposits are securely held in this manner. As a third party they will have different account details. It may be the case that the agency is protecting the deposit and you are paying rent to the landlord directly. This means that your deposit goes to the agency's account and the rent goes to the landlord's account. Obviously your landlord and agency have different accounts. A little colour to brighten your day: I am currently paying my rent to the agency who also took the deposit but, because of the way they handle deposits versus rent, the deposit was sent to a different account held by the same agent. In my previous flat I paid the deposit to an agency and the rent directly to the landlord. This resulted in an issue one time where I got the two accounts confused and paid rent to the agency who, after giving me a small slap on the wrist, transferred it to my landlord. In the flat before that I paid rent and the deposit to my landlords' holding company. That is one of the few times that I paid rent and the deposit into the same account. Again check with the agent that one of these situations is the case but this is absolutely normal when renting through an agency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5462c5440487993203311af78d85f3d5",
"text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. If you're absolutely sure you didn't just send money to a scammer impersonating a landlord, this has nothing to do with fraud-- they're playing a game with you. By changing the account number frequently, it makes it more likely you make a mistake in entering the payment account. When they come back to you a few days past due saying \"\"we never received your rent,\"\" you'll eventually realize it got sent to the wrong account. Now you owe them late fees, and there's really nothing you can do about it-- you did not in fact pay them on time; you sent it to the wrong account! It's an easy way for them to collect an additional few thousand dollars a year. Anytime a small business or landlord says they have to do something \"\"weird\"\" to reduce fraud, chances are it's a pretense to you getting hosed in some way.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "67c16553eb107f3a09a363b409f3429c",
"text": "Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac821b70be2c004e997630792a7b8877",
"text": "There are two unique identifiers for a bank account: SWIFT code + bank internal identifier, or IBAN code. IBAN is mostly used within European banking system, and the whole code provides a direct and unique identification of the account. SWIFT is an international network where each bank/bank branch has its own address, and account number is a metadata added to the message for the receiving bank to handle. Usually the name of the recipient and additional information are required when wiring money through the SWIFT network, to match the records and make sure there's no mistake. Account numbers don't have to be unique, not even within the same bank. There's always something else in addition to uniquely identify them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dcfca74c7468d514f1fcd2ea1efdb83",
"text": "I believe it is so. It doesn't sound like they did anything outright illegal, just a pushy upsell. You can complain to the bank manager. If you want you can mention the employee by name (if you know who they are). Ultimately, you can change banks. From what you say it sounds like you are dissatisfied with this bank, so I think you should at least begin evaluating other banks and consider switching. You can also let your current bank know you are planning to take all your money away from them specifically because of their poor customer service. You could consider filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alleging that the bank engaged in some kind of deceptive marketing of their financial products. Of course you can also file a complaint with something like the Better Business Bureau, or even just write a negative Yelp review. But these actions won't really result in any penalty for the bank as a result of what they did in your specific case; they just express your dissatisfaction in a way that will be recorded and possibly made public (e.g., in a list of complaints) to protect future consumers. If you're really gung-ho and have time and money to burn, you could hire a lawyer and get legal advice about whether it is possible to sue the bank for fraud or misuse of your personal information. Needless to say, I think this would be overkill for this situation. I would just cancel the credit card, tell the bank you're dissatisfied, switch banks, and move on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d16ce2d564ec8d4ba4693beacc3f424",
"text": "If the checking account is in a FDIC insured bank or a NCUA insured Credit Union then you don't have to worry about what happens if the bank goes out of business. In the past the government has made sure that any disruption was minimal. The fraud issue can cause a bigger problem. If they get a hold of your debit card, they can drain your account. Yes the bank gives you fraud protection so that the most you can lose is $50 or $500; many even make your liability $0 if you report it in a timely manor. But there generally is a delay in getting the money put back in your account. One way to minimize the problem is to open a savings account,it also has the FDIC and NCUA coverage . The account may even earn a little interest. If you don't allow the bank to automatically provide an overdraft transfer from savings to checking account, then the most they can temporarily steal is your checking account balance. Getting a credit card can provide additional protection. It also limits your total losses if there is fraud. The bill is only paid once a month so if they steal the card or the number, they won't be able to drain the money in the bank account. The credit card, if used wisely can also start to build a positive credit file so that in a few years you can get a loan for a car or a place to live. Of course if they steal your entire wallet with both the credit and the debit card...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bbcc5182b857524b23283bcdab578ac",
"text": "If you're worried about the account number just take a statement and black out the account number with a Sharpie or the like. That is if the account number even appears on it, these days it often doesn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd91ac9a13ba443f8dd0b2a5af1598d9",
"text": "You will probably not be able to figure out the bank from the account number. You can check for your name on registries of abandoned bank accounts or unclaimed money, but without more information, you don't have a lot of options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9a8b8c4c7721475273f9e7d3459add0",
"text": "Every bank has uses their own number ranges and assigns account numbers as they like. That means that the same account number could be in use by basically every bank simultaneously - which makes it impossible to find out the bank from the account number. A similar situation would be to find a street name from the house number - obviously, there are many streets that have a given number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85c8b5fc25546611c4d7aa05d80c5060",
"text": "\"It's pretty easy for foreign scammers to get a US phone number or email. A domestic bank account is a little harder. Very likely the direct contact is a US citizen or a legal immigrant. The Nigerian may be completely made-up to throw you off the scent. And that person can be found, dunned, or deported, and there's even a small chance of reversing the bank transfers. It's also hard for foreign scammers to sound American on the phone, again suggesting a domestic scam or one with domestic agents. If you or your son is willing to do a serious amount of skill-building and legwork, you can uncover evidence by filing a lawsuit. Once you have done so, you can use the legal processes of discovery to force banks etc. to give you information they would never give willingly. There are countless details. Lawyers get paid to get the details right. Suing actual people can backfire, they can countersue. But since you do not know their real name, you would probably be filing a \"\"John Doe\"\" lawsuit. \"\"John Doe\"\" is a placeholder: the idea being that you will later, through discovery, uncover the defendants' real names. For a novice exploring the legal system for the first time, there's a big advantage - John Doe never countersues or quashes, he never gets in your way or wastes your time... heck, he never even shows up in court! And when you collect evidence via discovery, you can take that to law enforcement or immigration. It goes without sayi-- well, there's no need to go into that. Just realize you did goof, and make sure you learn the lessons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63bcbc146bddda345cf91dbc20cc10e5",
"text": "In many countries it is a legal requirement or in some other way mandatory for the banks to ban the owner(s) of an account to allow a third party to use the account. In some countries if you willing give someone access in this way you get no compensation what so ever and you'll be lucky if they catch the crooks and even luckier if you get any of your money back. Don't forget the possibility of jail time due to the criminal activities going on under your name.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf9c27dcd6ececc521e3e36e3051ec44",
"text": "SpecKK's answer is excellent, I've only got two things to add: When your creditors change your account number, make sure to update your online information. You're not sending back a coupon, so it's up to you to make sure it has the new number and gets posted to the correct account. If your bank supports it, give the creditors good labels/nicknames. If you have names that are similar, it's easy to send a payment to the wrong place -- this may not be easy to detect and is a hassle to straighten out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9825f66ddff2952845d37a42b68709f",
"text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba2b8b6ff34a67ab2d2fc51c37304d6",
"text": "You should talk to your bank and explain what happened. Your bank may contact vendor bank to discuss the account, but really that is up to them. Then you should contact your police department and report the fraud. Realistically, your chances of recovering any money is negligible. I think your best chance is convincing your bank to work with vendor bank on a reversal(if it was a domestic transfer), although it is more likely that the vendor bank account is already empty and closed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6ee0268f820bc54c4686272f14fe567",
"text": "Generally just giving a Bank Account Number does not cause damage. It depends on what other information the user has and the country you are in. Generally Bank take telephone instruction for certain [non-transactional] activities , and they would authenticate you by asking account number, address, date of birth and some additional info. In today's world this info can be pretty easily accessible, for example facebook or a details posted on Jobsites etc. It is best avoided to give the bank account details, unless you are sure of the person. Typical other misuse is using your bank account to Launder black money. The typical modus is transfer funds to you and then ask you to transfer it elsewhere. At times its also a scam and you loose money as they trick you in sending money before you receive it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a688faf4d3c64d1c61c6ff3d1e8d183",
"text": "ATMs have had repeated attack vectors over the years they have proved to be quite vulnerable over and over. Worse than that many of the attacks haven't been fixed either, its only secrecy of the attack vectors that save them. But that isn't an us issue, its an issue for the bank and if they loose money due to hacks then that happens and it impacts on their profits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e28a61090dd27438f9dca6c582fb29c",
"text": "Your plan isn't bad, but it probably isn't worth the cost for the small amount of credit building it will achieve. If you do decide to continue with it though, you'll save in interest if you make the big payment now rather than in 6 months. In other words, you can take the minimum payment, multiply it by 5, subtract that amount from the total you owe and pay the difference immediately. This way you'll still get the 6 months of reporting to the credit bureaus, but you'll pay less interest since you'll have less principle each month. I would recommend applying for the credit card right now. I believe you'll probably get approved now. If you do, then pay off the car loan without thinking about it. (If you don't get approved, think about it, then probably still pay it off.) Regarding the full coverage insurance, even after the loan is paid off and you aren't required to have it, you may still want to keep it. Even if you're the best driver on earth, if someone hits you and doesn't have insurance, or they have insurance and drive off, or a deer runs in front of you, etc, you'll lose your car and won't be reimbursed. Also, as Russell pointed out in the comments below, without collision coverage your insurance company has no incentive to work on your behalf when someone else hits you, so even if it's not your fault you may still not get reimbursed. So, I wouldn't pass on the full coverage unless your car isn't worth very much or you can stomach losing it if something happens. Good luck, and congrats on being able to pay for a car in full at 19 years old.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
050e74373b1f5295e5e1bce444e079ee
|
What does “Settling your Debt” entail, and how does it compare to other options?
|
[
{
"docid": "4787b8822af4b04736b0eabd46266606",
"text": "If you are struggling with debt and cannot realistically pay your debts off with your current level of income, these businesses offer, for a fee, to negotiate with your debt providers a sum that you can realistically afford to pay. The debt providers will consider the offer because they would rather get some money back rather than nothing (as these are usually unsecured loans). For you it can be a better deal than going bankrupt or trying to struggle endlessly to pay off something you can't afford to pay off. Note, that even though you won't be bankrupt, you will be treated (by lenders) very similar to being bankrupt. In other words, it will be very hard for you to get new loans in the near future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5eb05ee4800aba88c0cee02a84491170",
"text": "\"Basically, these guys break all your eggs then try to make an omelet. Your lender(s) must really believe that you have no ability to pay before they'll settle, which generally entails not paying them until your creditworthiness is in the tank. Bankruptcy laws exist for a reason. If your credit is in the tank, you can't make your payments and you're shopping to settle your debts, it's not likely a bankruptcy would worsen your situation; in fact, quite the opposite. But, people have hugely negative feelings toward bankruptcy and don't want to be called a \"\"deadbeat\"\", these services prey on those people.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1c688dafd3e05264c49cdd68c65874d",
"text": "\"These agencies consolidate your debt and make it an easy monthly instalment for you. They also try to negotiate with credit cards. They do so for a fee. Other option is to not pay the debt. During this time , expect credit cards to keep sending you bills and reminders and ways to contact you. Once it is not paid for a significant amount of time ( 18 months ) , the lender will \"\"sell\"\" your debt to a collection agency. You will start getting bills from collection agencies. Collection agencies can settle for up to 40 % of the actual debt. So if you had 5 credit cards , you would have 5 different collection agencies trying to get in touch with you. You can call them and tell them that you cannot pay the full amount. They will offer you settlements which you can accept or decline. The longer the unpaid debt , the more the discount they will offer. One very important thing to remember is that the unpaid amount will be sent to you on a 1099-c form . This means you have to recognize this as income. It is applicable to the year when the debt is settled. In a nut shell , you owe 120,000. You don't pay. Credit cards keeps calling you. You don't pay. After 12-18 months , they handover your debt to collection agencies. Collection agencies will try to get in touch with you. Send you lawsuit letters. You call and settle for say 50,000. You pay off 50,000 in 2016. Your debt is settled. But wait you will get 1099-C forms from different agencies totaling 70,000 ( unpaid debt ). You will have to declare that as income and you will owe tax on that. Assuming say 30 % tax you will have to pay up 21,000 as tax to IRS assuming no other income for simplicity. SO what you did was pay up 50 + 21 = 71,000 and settled the debt of 120,000. Your credit score will be much better than if you never paid at all.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e3e14562a61fcaed88af1212ad4326d7",
"text": "Short-term, getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do. However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending. Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending. You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce527149471a9f71e42cff35126becb5",
"text": "\"Yes, your debt goes up by that amount. It becomes part of the loan, and you'll pay interest on it. That's what \"\"capitalization \"\" means. It's not a bill because you don't have to pay it. We'll, not yet…\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77e8a58ea457d1de62cdf902574ded7f",
"text": "\"First to actually answer the question \"\"how long at these rates/payments?\"\"- These is nothing magic or nefarious about what the bank is doing. They add accrued interest and take your payment off the new total. I'd make higher payments to the 8.75% debt until it's gone, $100/mo extra and be done. The first debt, if you bump it to $50 will be paid in 147 months, at $75/mo, 92 months. Everything you pay above the minimum goes right to the principal balance and gets you closer to paying it off. The debt snowball is not the ideal way to pay off your debt. Say I have one 24% credit card the bank was nice enough to give me a $20,000 line of credit on. I also have 20 cards each with $1000 in credit, all at 6%. The snowball dictates that the smallest debt be paid first, so while I pay the minimum on the 24% card, the 6% cards get paid off one by one, but I'm supposed to feel good about the process, as I reduce the number of cards every few months. The correct way to line up debt is to pay off the (tax adjusted) highest rate first, as an extra $100 to the 24% card saves you $2/mo vs 50 cents/mo for the 6% cards. I wrote an article discussing the Debt Snowball which links to a calculator where you can see the difference in methods. I note that if the difference from lowest to highest rate is small, the Snowball method will only cost you a small amount more. If, by coincidence, the balances are close, the difference will also be small. The above aside, it's the rest of your situation that will tell you the right path for you. For example, a matched 401(k) deposit should take priority over most debt repayment. The $11,000 might be better conserved for a house downpayment as that $66/mo is student loan and won't count as the housing debt, rather \"\"other debt\"\" and part of the higher ratio when qualifying for the mortgage. If you already have taken this into account, by all means, pay off the 8.75% debt asap, then start paying off the 3% faster. Keep in mind, this is likely the lowest rate debt one can have and once paid off, you can't withdraw it again. So it's important to consider the big picture first. (Are you depositing to a retirement account? Is it a 401(k) and are you getting any matching from the company?)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "162ef645bed4bd15997a86978699716f",
"text": "I would sit down with the creditors and negotiate smallest amount you can get before agreeing with whatever you have to pay. Think that, for them, it's much more convenient to get way less than $36K than to see you in collections. Needless to say, don't tell them you have to money to cancel off :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88eb0c2b6d234fab9d14c3c476390f47",
"text": "I am not a structured products expert, just relaying what's in the article, but I'd imagine it includes a larger equity tranche in the structured product, thereby giving more cushion against losses to the actual debt investors in the tranches above it in the payment water fall.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c968fca500d16aa2342cde86daa689b",
"text": "Finding a way to pay down credit debt is important, because you're probably paying in the high teens in APR. 401k should be last resort. Have you researched other options? E.g loan consolidation If you don't mind me asking, how did you get that far in debt?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "913fd9900fd961dcd169ed3b3edaac1d",
"text": "You signed a contract to pay the loan. You owe the money. Stories of people being arrested over defaulted student loans are usually based in contempt of court warrants when the person failed to appear in court when the collection agency filed suit against them. Explore student loan forgiveness program. Research collections and bankruptcy and how to deal with collection agencies. There are pitfalls in communicating with them which restart the clock on bad debt aging off the credit report, and which can be used to say that you agreed to pay a debt. For instance, if you make any sort of payment on any debt, a case can be made that you have assumed the debt. Once you are aware of the pitfalls, contact the collection agency (in writing) and dispute the debt. Force them to prove that it is your debt. Force them to prove that they have the right to collect it. Force them to prove the amount. Dispute the fairness of the amount. Doubling your principal in 6 years is a bit flagrant. So, work with the collectors, establish that the debt is valid and negotiate a settlement. Or let it stay in default. Your credit report in the US is shot. It will be a long time before the default ages off your report. This is important if you try to open a bank account, rent an apartment, or get a job in the US. These activities do not always require a credit report, but they often do. You will not be able to borrow money or establish a credit card in the US. Here's a decent informational site regarding what they can do to collect the loan. Pay special attention to Administrative Wage Garnishment. They can likely hit you with that one. You might be unreachable for a court summons, but AWG only requires that the collectors be able to confirm that you work for a company that is subject to US laws. Update: I am informed that federally funded student loans are not available to international students. AWG is only possible for debts to the federal government. Private companies must go through the courts to force settlement of debt. OP is safe from AWG.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce7cb5a5d9b8be5affaeffbeaafb039f",
"text": "\"TLDR: There are no to few monetary downsides. The process of settling an estate is called probate. Creditors can make claims against the estate, and assets should stand to pay any debts. If more debts are owed then assets, the beneficiaries are not held liable. Final expenses are usually the first amount paid out in full. So if the estate only contains enough assets to pay final expenses, then the creditors receive nothing. Usually creditors are paid pro-rated if there is not enough to cover debts. For the record, the probate process is greatly simplified if one has a will. Get a will if you don't have one. Life insurance is a bit different though. It passes directly to the beneficiaries and depending on the state could be untouchable by creditors. The same thing could also happen with retirements accounts. With 401K accounts, you could take some of it out, and pay tax on that. You could also roll it into your own account. Property receives a really good benefit. While it does pass through probate the cost basis of real estate is reestablished at the time of death. So if grandpa bought a house for 30K in the 40's, and it is now worth 120K. You inherit a 120K piece of property and when you sell you use 120K as your cost basis not 30K. Any estate taxes are typically paid by the state, not technically the heirs. If there is a 5% estate tax and they are to inherit 100K, they will only receive 95K. They will not receive 100K then be expected to be paid 5K. \"\"Electrically\"\" the same, but a large difference in responsibility. The biggest downside is if you have a will fight on your hands. If someone disputes the validity of the will that can incur a lot of legal fees. For small estates, it may not be worth the fight. The next is if any assets do go through probate. The process is lengthy and depending on the executor, they could reduce the size of the estate for charging for their time.\"",
"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": "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": "1c01d04b4898393b0ca7d236b6be9cbc",
"text": "Sounds like you are drowning in debt. Why not just stop paying? It will ruin your credit, but eventually you might be able to settle for much less than you owe and a reasonable interest rate. You will then have a long road to recover you credit, but IMHO this road is much longer and stressful. Hey, you are paying a high interest rate because you are EXPECTED to default. If you were expected to pay back your rates would be lower!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5a1e02a83ece448b4cfddd099a90eeb",
"text": "People who provide services like that are called debt councilors or debt advisors. They help you to organize your debts, advise you in prioritizing them and also help you to negotiate or legally challenge any unreasonable levies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ceb0296f8c154f411ec59378a46403a7",
"text": "This depends on the loan calculation methodology. If it is on reducing balance then yes. Else not much difference",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba50b477039636eafcbf36f884184668",
"text": "This is pretty simple in theory, harder to do in practice. You will be surprised how quickly the debt will disappear. Doing these things will work, I know from experience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9cf4aec9021b1e68600aff74ba4d11a3
|
Simple loan with a mortage as collateral
|
[
{
"docid": "cf4ebb2f45e209ce6aed1eb9814a36ff",
"text": "\"Obligatory \"\"Don't do it\"\" remarks: If the guy isn't trusted enough to even show up to work, and can't get a personal loan directly from a bank (Home Equity Line of Credit would suffice), this is really setting things up for failure. What if he quits? What if you need to fire him (you know, for not showing up for weeks)? </rant> In order to be able to place a lien on his home should he default on the loan, you'll need to draft up a loan agreement or promissory note stating specifically that you have the right to do so. Get a lawyer involved. Here's an article that talks about setting up a Private Home Loan, which is geared more at helping someone buy a home, but may prove useful in this case as well: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/borrowing-from-family-friends-buy-29649.html It's pretty lengthy, so I won't quote it out here, but the gist of it is: Get everything in writing in a legally binding contract.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72eed75865cf38a35de154505afa0fe3",
"text": "Assuming United States; answer may be different elsewhere. The best instructions I have seen for this were on the webpage of one of the law firms making an organized business out of intra-family loans, but any lawyer who can deal with normal bank loans should be able to help you set this up and get it filed with the appropriate authorities to make it a legally binding mortgage. Shouldn't cost you much in legal time to do it. You will have to charge interest; your lawyer can tell you what the minimum and maximimum interest rates would be where you are. Your interest income will be taxable. The borrower may or may not be able to deduct the interest paid from their taxes. Of course if the borrower has any sense they'll want to get their own lawyer to review the terms of the agreement, and to tell them whether they can deduct it from taxes or not.",
"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": "8f92ce53db50ec532e8395af9da6f0bb",
"text": "I think you are running into multiple problems here: All these together look like a high risk to a bank, especially right now with companies being reluctant to hire full-time employees. Looking at it from their perspective, the last thing they need right now is another potential foreclosure on their books. BTW, if it is a consolation, I had to prove 2 years of continuous employment (used to be a freelancer) before the local credit union would consider giving me a mortgage. We missed out on a couple of good deals because of that, too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "779300a60e57ff333c291551940b1bbd",
"text": "\"Please clarify your question. What do you mean by \"\"..loan in Greece\"\"? If you are referring to taking a mortgage loan to purchase residential property in Greece, there are two factors to consider: If the loan originates from a Greek bank, then odds are likely that the bank will be nationalized by the government if Greece defaults. If the loan is external (i.e. from J.P. Morgan or some foreign bank), then the default will certainly affect any bank that trades/maintains Euros, but banks that are registered outside of Greece won't be nationalized. So what does nationalizing mean for your loan? You will still be expected to pay it according to the terms of the contract. I'd recommend against an adjustable rate contract since rates will certainly rise in a default situation. As for property, that's a different story. There have been reports of violence in Greece already, and if the country defaults, imposes austerity measures, etc, odds are there will be more violence that can harm your property. Furthermore, there is a remote possibility that the government can attempt to acquire your private property. Unlikely, but possible. You could sue in this scenario on property rights violations but things will be very messy from that point on. If Greece doesn't default but just exits the Euro Zone, the situation will be similar. The Drachma will be weak and confidence will be poor, and unrest is a likely outcome. These are not statements of facts but rather my opinion, because I cannot peek into the future. Nonetheless, I would advise against taking a mortgage for property in Greece at this point in time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba18ba31775842e53398358765bef09d",
"text": "Construction loans have an entirely set of rules and factors than mortgages and that's hard to reconcile into one instrument. Also, I'm guessing the bank would be a bit shy about giving a commitment to a home loan before they have any information about how the construction process is going. There would have to be a ton of contingencies put into mortgage and they probably can't account for everything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e2e2ad27dfc78b189d96ccbc1f54039",
"text": "You will not be able to. Here is why you don't have the collateral. You have a car that is probably not worth 10k. Also you probably do not have a simple interest loan. You have to look at your contract. Make sure that there is not early payment fee. Also look for the rule of 78's Explanation of Rule of 78's I can't sugarcoat this chances are you were ripped off because you had bad credit putting you into an even deeper hole.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86ef9962360668eba7a9c6caf07a7265",
"text": "Generally speaking, no they won't. In this case, though I haven't done it myself, I was recommended to put the mortgage on the real estate after it's been leased out and has a contract on it. Then, yes, they will use it for that. But, ex-ante don't expect any bank to count on income from it because, at that point, there's zero guarantee you'll get it leased, and even if you do, at what rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d99d9f07d98a490df01d95a11efb58aa",
"text": "\"Your assumption is wrong. Land is definitely mortgageable. On the other hand, it may be simpler and attract a lower interest rate if you just mortgage your existing house. (I believe most companies call this \"\"remortgaging\"\" even if you have no existing mortgage). Any loan will be subject to proof that you'll be able to pay it off, like any other mortgage. If the land itself is mortgaged you would need a deposit (i.e. the value of the mortgage would need to be less than the value of the land).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73deb8ce59c254ab3f7158df06349e47",
"text": "\"Not unless you have something else to put up as collateral. The bank wants a basic assurance that you're not going to immediately move the money to the Caymans and disappear. 999 times out of 1000, the collateral for a home mortgage is the home itself (which you wouldn't be able to take with you if you decided to disappear), so signing up for a 30 year mortgage on a nonexistent house is probably going to get you laughed out of the bank. It's sometimes possible to negotiate something else as collateral; you may, for instance, have a portfolio of securities worth the loan principal, that you can put in escrow for the term of the loan (the securities will stay in your name and make you money, but if you default on the loan the bank goes to the escrow company and takes the portfolio for their own). The bank will consider the risk of value loss on the securities in the portfolio, and may ask for a higher collateral value or only allow a lower loan amount. In all cases, it's usually a bad idea to go into long-term personal debt just to get \"\"cheap money\"\" that you can use to beat the interest rate with some business plan or investment. If you have a business plan, take that to the bank with an LLC and ask for a business loan. The business itself, if the plan is sound, should become valuable, and the terms of business loans take that into account, allowing for a \"\"shrinking collateral\"\" transferring the initial personal risk of the loan to the business.\"",
"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": "0ad0a10b997fe694ff570c21f460ebae",
"text": "Typically the least formal agreement for any type of lending is a Promisory Note (of which you can find plenty across the web, although I'd suggest picking up a Nolo book from the library and using their templates -- I think the book holding your type of form would be the Personal Legal forms Book). Still, $10k is a very large amount of money to lend to a friend and he probably is better off going to a bank and asking for an unsecured line of credit (not a credit card, but rather a general loan) and doing the money that way because typically that amount of money is small to the bank and they will already have the licenses/assets in place to handle collateral and such (which can be very tricky to do on your own).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6ad881959a40ac8ec659db1924860be",
"text": "You're never going to get really low interest for an unsecured loan (i.e. without collateral), but if your credit score is excellent, then most banks should give you a decent rate for a personal line of credit. You could inquire at several banks to compare offers. Here in Germany there are also websites that will do such a comparison for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72c6294a241bea25d2691f469ed674e1",
"text": "What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001ad7f8030aa55b992aab75c2bd3b7d",
"text": "This is one way in which the scheme could work: You put your own property (home, car, piece of land) as a collateral and get a loan from a bank. You can also try to use the purchased property as security, but it may be difficult to get 100% loan-to-value. You use the money to buy a property that you expect will rise in value and/or provide rent income that is larger than the mortgage payment. Doing some renovations can help the value rise. You sell the property, pay back the loan and get the profits. If you are fast, you might be able to do this even before the first mortgage payment is due. So yeah, $0 of your own cash invested. But if the property doesn't rise in value, you may end up losing the collateral.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e6b3c3d49316238ac8a589d1dd171d9",
"text": "\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd40fec317928dc6104dc709adb7b007",
"text": "On $4K/mo gross about $1000/mo can go to the mortgage, and at today's rates, that's about $200K of mortgage the bank might lend you. Income is qualified based on gross, not net, so if $48,000/yr is wrong, please scale my guesstimate down a bit. In the end, today's rates allow a mortgage of nearly 4X one's gross income. This is too high, in my opinion. I'm answering what the bank would approve you at, not what I think is wise. Wise, in my opinion is 2.5-3X one's income, tops.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c499fb8b0df6562bea921ff0f5555fc4
|
Why should we expect stocks to go up in the long term?
|
[
{
"docid": "02498fdcc586a581a7ed57d87363fa78",
"text": "Does it make sense for stocks to earn a premium indefinitely? Yes. There is good reason to think that the stock market will make money indefinitely: the stock market is the primary mechanism through which investors bear market risk, which requires compensation. If you think of all the owners of firms (stockholders and bondholders, generally) the risk premium that stocks earn stocks is the way bondholders pay equityholders to bear the risk that they do not wish to. Will stock prices always go up in the long run? As long as companies pay out less in dividends than their profit, prices will go up. That could change if we were to change our corporate culture and/or tax practices so that firms paid out more in dividends. However, for the purposes of your question, I think it doesn't matter much whether the investor makes money as dividends or capital gains. Does the 5-7% guess apply only to the US market? I didn't write (nor read) the books in question, but most likely that is a global number. The US dominates the global equity market, so it's often a good proxy. However, international returns taken together have no less risk and earn no less over long horizons in general. The particular examples you have pointed out are special cases that only apply to a part of the global economy and a particular time period. There are plenty of examples of stock markets and time periods that did much better than the US market to offset your examples. Is 5-7% a reasonable long-term estimate of equity returns? Equity will always earn more in expectation than risk-free securities will. How much more depends on major economic factors. 5-7% has been a good estimate for the market risk premium for many, many decades (stocks should earn this plus whatever the risk-free rate is). However, that is just an empirical observation, not a rule. It can change. Some day technological progress could slow down or stop, we could run out of important resources in a way that we can't compensate for, our population permanently could stop growing, aliens could invade, etc. Down the road it is certainly possible for expected equity returns to go down and never go back up again. This would result from a permanent, global, economic shift that I think would be pretty obvious. That is, you wouldn't have to look at stock prices to know it was happening.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19b77118c82ee59413679b2e08b53b94",
"text": "I have read in many personal finance books that stocks are a great investment for the long term, because on average they go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index, but is there reason to believe this trend will continue indefinitely into the future? It has also been wrong for 20+ year time periods during those last 100 years. It's an average, and you can live your whole career at a loss. There are many things to support the retention of the average, over the next 100 years. I think the quip is out of scope of your actual investment philosophy. But basically there are many ways to lower your cost basis, by reinvesting dividends, selling options, or contributing to your position at any price from a portion of your income, and by inflation, and by the growth of the world economy. With a low enough cost basis then a smaller percentage gain in the index gives you a magnified profit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a39e508126cf4dbdb4d2f1ff5c3bfeb",
"text": "I feel something needs to be addressed The last 100 years have been a period of economic prosperity for the US, so it's no surprise that stocks have done so well, but is economic prosperity required for such stock growth? Two world wars. The Great Depression. The dotcom bust. The telecom bust. The cold war. Vietnam, Korea. OPEC's oil cartel. The Savings and Loans crisis. Stagflation. The Great Recession. I could go on. While I don't fully endorse this view, I find it convincing: If the USA has managed 7% growth through all those disasters, is it really preposterous to think it may continue?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4048f622462175257b20a025cffe2227",
"text": "The total value of the stock market more or less tracks the total value of the companies listed in the stock market, which is more or less the total value of the US economy (since very few industries are nationalized or dominated by privately held companies). The US economy has consistently grown over time, thanks to the wonders of industrialization, the discovery of new markets, new natural resources, etc. Thus, the stock market has continued to grow as well. Will it forever? No. The United States will not exist for ever. But there's no obvious reason it won't continue to grow, at least for a while, though of course if I could accurately predict that I would be far richer than I am. Why do other countries not have the same result? China is its own ball of wax since it's a sort-of-market-sort-of-command economy. Japan has major issues economically right now and doesn't really have the natural or people resources; it also had a huge market bubble a while back that it's never recovered from. And many European countries are doing fine. German's DAX30 index was at around 2500 in 2004 and is now at nearly 13000. That's pretty fast growth. If you go back further (there was a crash ending in around 2004), you can see around the fall of the Berlin wall it was still around 2000; even going that far back, that's about an 8% annual bump. The FTSE was also around 2000 back then, around 8000 now, which is around 5% annual growth. Many of these indexes were more seriously hurt than the US markets in the two major crashes of this millenium; while the US markets fell a lot in 2008, they didn't fall nearly as much as many smaller markets in 2002, so had less to recover from. Both DAX and FTSE suffered similar falls in 2002 to 2008, and so even though during good periods they've grown quite quickly, they haven't overall done as well as they could have given the crashes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5357ae76bad6f93e3cf49890edff622b",
"text": "\"Stocks \"\"go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index....\"\" This was true in the 20th century in America. It was not true (over the whole century) for other major countries like Germany, Russia, Japan, or China. (It was more or less true for Britain and certain Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada.) A lot of this had to do with which countries were occupied (or not) during the two world wars. In one of his company's annual reports, Warren Buffett pointed out that the U.S. standard of living went up 6-7 times in the 20th century, that this was unprecedented (and might not be repeatable in the 21st century). The performance of the U.S. stock market in the past century is representative of those (and other) past facts. If a different set of facts prevails going forward, the U.S. stock market would be reflective of those \"\"different\"\" facts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cd4ebc007e5e4e0e0ffeb192ed4576b",
"text": "Companies are expected to make a profit, otherwise there is no point to their existence and no motivation for investment. That profit comes back to shareholders as growth and/or dividend. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to turn back into investment to facilitate increased future earnings, it increases shareholder equity and share price. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to pay out in dividend, it makes the shares more attractive to investors which pushes the price up. Either way, shares go up. Share prices drop when companies lose money, or there are market disturbances affecting all companies (recessions), or when individual companies fail. Averaged over all companies over the long term (decades), stocks can be reasonably expected to go up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09fa54925fc02fb49d240221891260b0",
"text": "\"The last 300 years of civilization have been amazingly atypical. We have experienced industrial revolution after industrial revolution. Economic revolutions that would have changed the world in 1000 AD show up as noise. Coal, Canal, Rail, Trade, Electricity, Refrigeration, Oil, Gas, Nuclear, Assembly Line, Vacuum Tube, Mass Education, Transistor, Integrated Circuit, Nano-tech, Antibiotics, Slaying of absolute Poverty, Democratic, Feminism, Superhighway, Automobile, Airplane, and on and on and on. A cascade of miracles and world-shaking events that have intertwined and together generated a many century long economic singularity that has upended the entire world and generated today's world. The question you should ask, is tomorrow going to be like today? And the answer is yes; in weather, and in economics, the most likely bet bet is always \"\"things keep on going like they have in the short term\"\". But next week? Next month? That is often not much like today. There is reason to believe that the yield on the above revolutions will continue to propel the economy forward, and that there are multiple promising new revolutions on the horizon. But barring that kind of world-shaking revolution, you are not going to maintain a 5% real return on investment over another centuries for the stock market. The value of investments has to go up by a factor of over 100 in order for that to happen, and the US stock market is already close to 20 trillion dollars. For it to have a market cap of 2 quadrillion dollars the world economy will have to be much larger than it is today. And to be that much larger, the world would have to be a much stranger place that values very different things. We are currently roughly a K-type 0.72 civilization. A simple linear expansion of our power of 100x brings us up to K-type 0.92, which is going to cook the planet from waste heat (not from CO2, but just from the waste heat of the energy it uses!) Efficiency can mitigate this, but only to a degree. 100x more efficient technology is going to less believable than a beanstalk and space colonies. If you believe that the stock market is going to continue to grow at 5%/year for the next century, start investing in really out-there technologies. Gene editing, virtual and augmented reality, space beanstalks and private lift, miraculously cheap energy storage, etc. Because simply refining the technology of today won't get us there. Modern industrial civilization has been a miracle factory. That is what pulled off that growth rate. If the miracles stop coming, so does the growth. There is a road to it. It would involve clean energy, mass personal automation and friendly (not smarter than human) AI, and the entire world lifted up to the standard of living of the top 3% of the USA on average. But it is far from guaranteed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b162c03324b8020cb7acdc8e7c8b3d0f",
"text": "\"Stock returns cannot be evaluated on its own. You need to take into account inflation and the return of other investment vehicles. Over the long run, you want to earn more than your peers (ie inflation), or lose less than them. Stock lets you buy into the profits of a company managed by others. So the fundamental question is \"\"do those company managers make better decision than average person?\"\" Of course there are times when they make awful decisions (eg just before dotcom bubble), and sometimes the best decision is to close the business. But overall those people are much better educated, have higher IQ, more resourceful, etc, and so over long time and across all the companies, this is correct and hence the stock market premium.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272",
"text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6d841e056b929642b5c6a6ecd27239fd",
"text": "Should go up because of a company is doing better than the market previously expected it to do, the implication is that it's undervalued at the current price and you buy now you're getting it for less than what it's worth. If Trump was wrong, then the stock would trade up for a bit before ultimately finishing up where it started when the market realises there's nothing in what he said.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca40f9b445156190dec0799d8d34b5f7",
"text": "\"I always liked the answer that in the short term, the market is a voting machine and in the long term the market is a weighing machine. People can \"\"vote\"\" a stock up or down in the short term. In the long term, typically, the intrinsic value of a company will be reflected in the price. It's a rule of thumb, not perfect, but it is generally true. I think it's from an old investing book that talks about \"\"Mr. Market\"\". Maybe it's from one of Warren Buffet's annual letters. Anyone know? :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ce46da861ff836bfd445c2b476746a",
"text": "It is in the interest of private owners, stockholders and boards to ensure long-term viability of companies as well. In the case of stockholders and boards, the current price of the stock has its future earning potential priced into the value of the stock. For example, if Microsoft or Google declared that they were shutting down their big research projects, their stock would tumble. Pharmaceutical and chemical companies also have interest in long term viability. They understand that the projects that they start today will not hit the market for another 10 years. If they go bust, all of that money is wasted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6006d5d44a26b2d1418cbde824c60d6",
"text": "Ok, see that was my thinking too. Historically, stocks and land values have always gone up, even after the depression. So, it seems to me, that if you have a buy and hold strategy with a horizon of 10-20 years, then you should be fine. Is my thinking realistic along those lines?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47693cc23fde88c8eed203721d2aebe5",
"text": "\"I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that \"\"momentum\"\" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is \"\"Cut your losses, and let your winners ride.\"\" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7e580929c80c1a59673b0da603501aa",
"text": "In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US. Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades. An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f750e98ac42cb2c1e3eca83071e59030",
"text": "\"Past results are not a predictor of future results. There is no explicit upper bound on a market, and even if individual companies' values were remaining unchanged one would expect the market to drift upward in the long term. Plus, there's been some shift from managing companies for dividends to managing stocks for growth, which will tend to increase the upward push. Trying to time the market -- to guess when it's going to move in any particular direction -- is usually closer to gambling than investing. The simplest answer remains a combination of buy-and-hold and dollar-cost averaging. Buy at a constant number of dollars per month (or whatever frequency you prefer), and you will automatically buy more when the stock/fund is lower, less when it is higher. That takes advantage of downturns as buying opportunities without missing out on possible gains at the other end. Personally, I add a bit of contrarian buying to that -- I increased my buying another notch or two while the market was depressed, since I had money I wouldn't need any time soon (buy and hold) and I was reasonably confident that enough of the market would come back strongly enough that I wasn't at significant risk of losing the investment. That's one of the things which causes me to be categorized as an \"\"aggressive investor\"\" even though I'm operating with a very vanilla mix of mutual funds and not attempting to micromanage my money. My goal is to have the money work for me, not vice versa.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41226f31165489d28c4c87a28c1c9d2d",
"text": "\"One key to trading is recognizing expectations. What you see in the market is not always a reflection of fundamentals; sometimes, it's a reflection of what people expect to occur, whether that actually happens or not, is debatable. When a currency experiences inflation, such as the CPI being higher today for the USD, it may see an increase because people expect that the central bank will raise rates. Again, this may not be the case, and the traders with this expectation could be wrong. If you're seeing a currency rise after reported inflation, more than likely, traders expect the inflation to benefit the currency in the longer run. Finally on the economics' side, and economists here can debate this, at least in the past the view was that there was a relationship between inflation and unemployment (see the Phillip's Curve). This idea, depending on who you ask, was refuted in the 70s when we had both high inflation and high unemployment (stagflation). Supposedly, if we have high unemployment, we should have low inflation, so we can always raise inflation to have low unemployment. Note that you will still find some economists who think the Phillip's Curve is true, so \"\"refuted\"\" depends on who you ask. From what I've read, Austrian economists are the only economists who see inflation as always bad (long story short, I think it's Paul Cwik who argues that deflation is actually good); like you're seeing, other economists might see it as a good sign and it's only a concern when it's very high (hyperinflation).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bcb59a669749520116928bbb4a071bc",
"text": "Because growth and earnings are going down exponentially for this company? It will eventually go up (like 3 years+), but if you want to feel more pain first, go ahead. Look at the macroeconomic picture before you praise all mighty of an individual company",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6022bc93687e36f52a30b212aea8d4",
"text": "I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world. Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap stocks should beat large ones over the very long term if only for the fact that large companies can't maintain that level of growth indefinitely. A non-tech example - Coke has a 174B market cap with 46B in annual sales. A small beverage company can have $10M in sales, and grow those sales 20-25%/year for 2 decades before hitting even $1B in sales. When you have zero percent of the pie, it's possible to grow your business at a fast pace those first years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6380de041b63f6e0f06ab562a47f233",
"text": "Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06dc44ec6dd66aab8e5af5fb3f406ed7",
"text": "There's a case to be made that companies below a certain market cap have more potential than the higher ones. Consider, Apple cannot grow 100 fold from its current value. At $700B or so in value, that would be a $70T goal, just about the value of all the combined wealth in the entire US. At some point, the laws of large numbers take over, and exponential growth starts to flatten out. On the flip side, Apple may have as good or better chance to rise 10% over the next 6-12 months as a random small cap stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "556804e8b9ad652c9c7f033736e30826",
"text": "\"Um no. Easy google. \"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\" >This is how it works with stocks; supply is the amount of shares that people want to sell, and demand is the amount of shares that people want to purchase. If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. So sure, if a company is performing well, people will want to buy the stock. Causing it to go up. But even if a company was performing well and no one wanted to buy the stock. There would be only sellers and the price would go down.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67723070523d2d8a176e4ac196dd689f",
"text": "Yes for sure. It would be redundant. I have three of them, so what. Its just more money in retirement. I would prefer a ROTH IRA in your tax bracket and you next employer may not offer that. And yes there are tax breaks either putting money in to a IRA or if you go the Roth route, on the way out. So if you put money in a Roth now you will have some money at your tax rate in 40 years from now. And if you put money in a traditional IRA when you are an employee you will save on the tax rate you are at then. So you are hedging you bets on tax rates by paying them in two different decade. Personally we are probably all on a tax holiday right now and I would be that taxes will be higher in the future as they are historically pretty low right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fca73e29b05038112a00f43c8a4f49ef",
"text": "You are right: if the combined value of all outstanding GOOG shares was $495B, and the combined value of all GOOGL shares was $495B, then yes, Alphabet would have a market cap of at least $990B (where I say at least only because I myself don't know that there aren't other issues that should be in the count as well). The respective values of the total outstanding GOOG and GOOGL shares are significantly less than that at present though. Using numbers I just grabbed for those tickers from Google Finance (of course), they currently stand thus:",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cde5a6b55b0335ad5fb5c2ceea8b41e7
|
2008-2009 Stock Market Crash — what caused the second drop?
|
[
{
"docid": "0191d9168a6a4597066773639037bf12",
"text": "\"The second drop was part of the same event. The short-term resurgence is often called a \"\"dead cat bounce\"\". Mongus Pong's answer is a great answer, I'm going to approach from a more anecdotal POV. Think about the fear that was in the air in Fall 2008. From my recollection, that short-term stabilization came from the Fed, President, Congress, etc standing up and saying that the government would do everything in its power to maintain liquidity in the marketplace. So the fear of a broader collapse of investment banks (beyond Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, etc) due to the Fed behaving as it did in 1929 was abated. By the time you got to Q1 of 2009, it became clear that business vaporized -- nothing was happening. No cars were selling, Christmas was dismal, vacations were cancelled. (example: I went on vacation to a fancy resort in December 2008 and paid $60/night for a $450/night room! The place was half empty.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "666f7758e030bfc5bddf3d8ae3b3d858",
"text": "Ultimately no one really knows what causes the markets to rise and fall beyond supply and demand. If more people want to buy then sell, prices go up. And if more people want to sell, prices go down. The news channels will often try to attribute a specific reason to the price move, but that is largely just guess work to fill up the news pages so people have something to read. You may find it interesting to read up on the Elliot wave principle. The crash of 2008 was a perfect Elliot Wave fit. Elliot Wave theory states that social moods (which ultimately drive the stock market) generally occur in a relatively predictable pattern. The crash in September was a Wave 3 down. This is where the majority of people give up hope. However there are still a few people who are still holding on. The markets tend to meander about during wave 4. Finally the last few people give up hope and sell out. This causes the final crash of wave 5. Only when the last person has given up hope can the markets start to go up again..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a38877baeb397e6c9892d20f6f17f828",
"text": "\"First, I would like to use a better chart. In my opinion, a close of day line chart obscures a lot of important information. Here is a daily OHLC log chart: The initial drop from the 1099.23 close on Oct 3 was to 839.8 intraday, to close at 899.22 on Oct 10. After this the market was still very volatile and reached a low of 747.78 on Nov 20, closing only slightly higher than this. It traded as high as 934.70 on Jan 6, 2009, but the whole period of Nov 24 - Feb 13 was somewhat of a trading range of roughly 800-900. Despite this, the news reports of the time were frequently saying things like \"\"this isn't going to be a V shaped recovery, it is going to be U shaped.\"\" The roughly one week dip you see Feb 27 - Mar 9 taking it to an intraday low of 666.79 (only about 11% below the previous low) on first glance appears to be just a continuation of the previous trend. However... The Mar 10 uptrend started with various news articles (such as this one) which I recall at the time suggested things like reinstating the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 which had been repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Although these attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, the widespread telegraphing of such attempts in the media seemed to have reversed a common notion which I saw widespread on forums and other places that, \"\"we are going to be in this mess forever, the market has nowhere to go but down, and therefore shorting the market is a good idea now.\"\" I don't find the article itself, but one prominent theme was the \"\"up-tick\"\" rule on short selling: source From this viewpoint, then, that the last dip was driven not so much by a recognition that the economy was really in the toilet (as this really was discounted in the first drop and at least by late November had already been figured into the price). Instead, it was sort of the opposite of a market top, where now you started seeing individual investors jump on the band-wagon and decide that now was the time for a foray into selling (short). The fact that the up-tick rule was likely to be re-instated had a noticeable effect on halting the final slide.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2c4a6165ef1f2a21b51bb5577e609515",
"text": "I would say the real story is less about the implications of low vol but rather what has caused it. IMO that would be: 1) lots of money chasing a handful of investments a) loose monetary policy b) wealth effects from fantastic returns since the GR c) consolidation in various sectors (health, energy, tech) 2) rise of low cost index funds (all inflow go into the large swathes of the market so volatility across stocks is dampened) 3) various externalities of expansionary Fed policy a) resulting low bond yields lead to larger flows into equities b) low cost of debt feeding buybacks c) it has been sustained for so long it has had stabilizing effect i.e. predictability is good for markets and business decision making These factors make for an interesting story because what happens when some component of this system begins to show cracks? What happens when this low vol feedback loop ceases? Nobody knows. But it will not continue ad infinitum. Not all doom and gloom but it won't be the market we are used to today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adc75bf53b97b75a3085e35ceb845c0a",
"text": "The real folly is in believing that somehow 'regulators' are going to be able to prevent crashes, or even if this is desirable. Usually the idea that regulators can prevent crashes relies on regulators being issued a retroactive time machine. Crashes. Happen. If regulators had more power and more authority prior to 2008, the housing market crash would have been worse and more severe than it actually was, because regulators were like everyone else - they believed house prices would never go down, and were focussing their efforts on regulating banks to lend *more* money to *riskier* borrowers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8345935b79ce87ab4b5c0bbc8cae7ac4",
"text": "If you're willing to entertain the fact that a lack of any action by the fed would have killed market confidence and caused equities to tank, gold could have been a suitable asset in a flight to quality. Of course as others have said the drop would just be the uncertainty about QE3 being removed from the price",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af89fe14e34eb8e5c2a27ab13b14984",
"text": "From mid 2007 to early 2009 the DJI went down about 50 %. This market setback won't happen on a single day or even a few weeks. Emergency funds should be in cash only. Markets could be closed for an unknown period of time. Markets where closed September 11 until September 17 in 2001.",
"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": "54d4cc658c43e2133eeb5e352326f227",
"text": "\"Written by Alastair Williamson. Notable author of articles such as \"\"The Whole Damn System May Collapse Next Year\"\", \"\"Major Crisis of Cuture And Economy Coming Soon\"\", \"\"Horrendous Storm to Hit Stocks\"\", \"\"Central Banks Have Failed, Now They Exit, Economic Crash Expected\"\", \"\"DETROIT FORETELLS AMERICA’S FUTURE: IT’S VERY BAD\"\", \"\"THE TRIANGLE OF DEATH IN BALTIMORE: Hundreds of Murders Happen Here\"\" I sense a pattern here. https://squawker.org/author/alistair-williamson/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4cf1f5efd115f13c58c14aad6ff927f",
"text": "Everyone and their grandmother has been expecting QE to taper since May 2013. If the drop is caused by that, then it shouldn't be too serious. Also, can people stop comparing stuff to 2009? 2009 was a unique once-in-a-lifetime circumstance, and not indicative of actual market values.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c56f86c963da218d415cba0fa5b3cab",
"text": "That doesn't change anything. You're still judging an investment off a 5 year period which includes a massive event which destroyed oil stocks. My previous analogy still applies, if you held 2 portfolios, one with tech stocks and one without for the 5 year period that includes the tech crash in the early 2000s, of course the non tech one would outperform the tech one. XLE, an energy etf, dropped 30% at the end of that period. That has an outsized influence on your article there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d0b875c77a4a4201c11cd8add8538d0",
"text": "You're describing a dynamic that may contribute to lower house prices. It doesn't however speak to how those prices got so lofty, so untethered from wages and the broader economy to begin with and why the losses from the fall were amplified so many times over. That's a story you can't tell without working through the systemic fraud.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfb855ce6126884267e79bc7f356b5d7",
"text": "I think that the 2008 events represented a loss of a very large amount of equity for Americas, also it had a ripple effect around the world on other countries. Now - almost as if they wanted it to happen again, the Obama Administration's trade policy and big EU banks are pushing to use the [global TISA trade in services trade deal](http://corporateeurope.org/blog/342-civil-society-groups-oppose-deregulation-and-privatisation-proposed-services-agreement-tisa) to quietly irreversibly deregulate a huge number of areas whch will effect hundreds of millions of people, including the banking industry- deregulate global banks, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Deregulation is what caused the 2008 crisis- http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "140c880b96c13bbfc7a40ea088de70d7",
"text": "\"Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail. It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people \"\"buy on the rumor, sell on the news\"\". Which is just this side of insider trading.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84a6fe319b0256739a5c0bb2dcbb7f55",
"text": "I don't trust his analysis. Further, any composite measure that includes a Black Swan year is *at least potentially* misleading. 2009 was a once in multigenerations event unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. Since Shiller uses a 10 year historical running average it includes 2009 and is therefore, IMO, unreliable. Making 2009 look even more like an aberration is that the hole had been filled and then some in under 4 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96c93b94d8f9b5a8902c55d0f7405beb",
"text": "I hate attributing an event like this to a single cause. That implies that the market is an orderly system where everything operates smoothly. I prefer to see it as much chaotic. When I see a drop like that happen, I'd say that there were a lot of sellers of stocks and all the buyers were bidding less and less for those few minutes. Perhaps the catalyst for that was a typo or a strange order. But in the end all the participants in the market responded by bidding down stocks, not just one person. It takes sides to complete a trade. I know my model is a bit simplistic... I'd be happy if someone corrected me :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a175e4fa85bf6e475adb34ee6a85d28",
"text": "It is very simple. You bought the house when prices were near their peak in 2008. Housing prices have dropped considerably since then which was the main cause of the mortgage debacle because people had houses that were worth less than their mortgages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6487631b2b4ffbb9cc99b1d1f0e34565",
"text": "It will be most interesting to see what happens as Oil starts to get traded more in more in other currencies. In the controlled demolition that was the WTC, you could see the disbelief in peoples faces as the top started to topple and the first few floors pancaked, then the fear as they realized the whole thing was coming down and they started to run. Feels the same, a controlled demolition, 9.8 m/s^2 all the way down. Free fall",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0022270d8e8c73a494c4e73d05f2ab31
|
Can anyone else make an online payment for me?
|
[
{
"docid": "62d5c32ad49fc3189ebd8b98819ce212",
"text": "Your relative in the US could buy a pre-paid Visa (aka Visa gift card) and give you the numbers on that to pay. They're available for purchase at many grocery/convenience stores. In most (all??) cases there'll be a fee of a several dollars charged in addition to the face value of the card. The biggest headache I can think of would be that pre-paid cards are generally only available in $25/50/100 increments; unless the current SAT price matches one of the standard increments they'll have to buy the next card size up and then get the remaining money off it in a separate transaction. A grocery store would be one of the easier places for your relative to do this because cashiers there are used to splitting transactions across multiple payment sources (something not true at most other types of business) due to regularly processing transactions partially paid for via welfare benefits.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fc6cd8481d4716ff1f1c8e3b63a62584",
"text": "If you are regularly taking payments of $10,000 I'm very surprised you aren't already set up to accept credit card payments. If you are going to be doing this much in the future it would be a good thing to investigate. Some other options might be:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f25fafb34d78ed0c7ffedc3a21440848",
"text": "Ask your bank or credit union. Mine will let me issue recurring payments to anyone, electronically if they can, if not a check gets mailed and (I presume) I get billed for the postage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15a2c99870047a0f0da6754e8d2abb9e",
"text": "Hence why I pay bill by bill and don't authorize automatic withdrawals. Are you telling me your online banking and/or utility company don't allow you to make non automatic payments online? If so I guess thats the answer to OP's question...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5a71f2c3428ec167dea761168f72b54",
"text": "Very difficult to pay a credit card bill on a one off payment. Once you have selected HSBC card and used the secure key to confirm bill payment, in my experience it comes up error.mafter 3 attempts i was locked out of the account. Mush easier to use an account from another bank to pay the bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f37161273d28eaa14946bf84ac9c41c",
"text": "\"I made this mistake and tried calling Paypal...the first time I have ever been unhappy with their service. The girl gave me some number but didn't make it clear whether it was an order reference number or a reference phone number for the company I ordered from. I called within 10 minutes of placing my order and they were unable to cancel or change the payment method. I did find however, that even though you can't pay paypal with your credit card, some banks will let you. I went into my account and \"\"paid\"\" my account the amount needed using my credit card from the same bank that I had intended to use in the first place...hopefully it went through quickly enough to not get a service fee from Paypal\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13c9556a6bfbc8744a7927055097b8ac",
"text": "Goddady.com will gladly accept payment from your personal account. They don't really care, as long as you approve the charge, whose name the account is in. I'm not sure PayPal even check the names on the invoice and the account to match, they just want you to login. However, depending on your local laws, you may be required to have a separate business account. In the US, for example, corporations must have their own accounts. For other entities with limited liability (like LLC or LLP) it is advised to have a separate account to avoid piercing corporate veil. Also, if your business name is not your personal name - clients may want to verify that the checks/transfers are deposited under your business name. In some countries checks written out to X cannot be endorsed by X to be transferred to Y. That may affect your decision as well. You'll have to get a proper legal advice valid in your jurisdiction to know the answer to your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "179b9fdd54981b3261551dad61161e8a",
"text": "\">You could say the same about any public utility. (except the one largest one, technically) There are literally thousands and thousands of processors, which is not the case with utilities. Additionally, processors don't need to have any kind of office or presence anywhere near the business they're serving, which means being able to choose without geographical restrictions. Also, PayPal is not a utility. This is not a relevant comparison. >Are you saying they are unable, both contractually and technically, to affect the consumer side? They'd have to revoke their partnerships with banks who issue cards, which they aren't going to do, because consumers using cards is how they make money. Banks could choose not to issue cards, but they're already free to do that. (There's no right to a credit card.) >But also by selectively quoting me you are (deliberately?) side-stepping what actually happened in the WikiLeaks case, to focus on the consumer side. Visa and Mastercard prohibited payments to Wikileaks on the basis of WL allegedly facilitating illegal activity. How is that relevant to what PayPal's doing? >You must buy things in different corners of the Internet than I do. The customer experience (to me) is that there is \"\"the store\"\" or you can pay with PayPal. Yes, \"\"the store\"\" is actually a payment processor but this is a quick slippery slope to \"\"what? You can just set up your own payment processor once they've all blocked your legal business\"\". What are you talking about? You acknowledge that the store has its own processing but somehow that's not enough because someday they might not have processing and have to go through PayPal? Processors *already* deny service to legal businesses. Notably, anything considered \"\"high risk\"\" - which includes travel services, pharmaceuticals, firearms, adult entertainment, telemarketing, debt collection, tobacco, and more - but also for businesses with poor credit, high chargebacks, business practices they don't agree with, lots of international transactions, etc. It literally happens all the time. And, there are so many processors (tens of thousands) that there's another processor willing to step in. Tons of websites don't even use PayPal anymore, and the ones that do often layer it on top of a different payment option. (PayPal is trying hard to increase their presence in stores because of the competition in the internet space.) No one is unable to accept payments if they're barred from PayPal. PayPal actually cuts off accounts all the time because people use it for things against PayPal's TOS. Amazon payments, Shopify, and Stripe are the ones that most people know off the tops of their heads for online processing, but there are literally thousands. No one is somehow unable to conduct business if they can't use PayPal. The only time that businesses can't really get processing is if they do something like rack up chargebacks and disappear or commit fraud against a processor. In those cases, the processor can put that business on the Terminated Merchant File (or MATCH list) and other processors will see that there's been a problem with that customer and not take them on. Even in those cases, businesses can rectify the issue and get off the MATCH list or they can look for processors that will serve them anyway and expect to pay a premium for it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efc61f4ca2cbf4747a962aacb18f1111",
"text": "There are two separate cases here that people are not separating. Any card will allow you to pay an amount not exceeding the actually posted charges. Some cards will allow you to pay more than this, some will not. My parents have deliberately overpaid as a means of having a higher credit limit, I've been denied (different card) when trying to do the same thing and the website wouldn't even allow me to pay temporary charges that hadn't yet become real. (A human operator would allow paying those, though.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37332d0ccd73d33964ee61992a644e94",
"text": "I paid with my Visa credit card. Generally on credit cards, the holds / authorizations are valid for a month on single transactions. So if you haven't been charged on your card, it seems that there was some technical error with the online market place. They were not able to trace this. Is there an expiration date on these kind of online purchases? Should I expect the money to be withdrawn at any time? There are 2 different aspects, one is do you still owe them money and can they ask you; It would be yes, I don't know the timelines. This would depend on establishing a contract etc. They can contact you for unpaid invoice. Can they again charge the credit card automatically ... generally No.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95f2f611920c54d8dff0a27016ba995b",
"text": "Can a third party deposit to my account? (Say I'm selling something and I ask him/her to just deposit the payment to my account? No, but PayPal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f018359d0739570b8f8a82964cfbbd",
"text": "\"Many people do not know that bank online bill paying services are not provided directly by the bank. Banks often \"\"farm out\"\" this task to third party providers of bill paying services. These services in turn may farm out the customer service function to agents in foreign countries. These customer service agents have access to your account number, social security number, and your balance. This means that people have your personal information in countries where you have no rights and where security is not good and where enemies of your nation can easily access that information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75e2776ae73972de03c962b7d71f99af",
"text": "A majority of people in whichever country they reside, use the internet and make payment online. Using online services is indeed another technological advancement that allows you to complete your payments sitting at home at any time round the clock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "267b4402f53ee29f4dc1807766846c22",
"text": "\"Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? I'd guess that's to protect the card company, not you. The number of the card is guessable, but each other bit of information makes it much harder to guess (the CVV code makes it ~1000 times harder, the expiration date makes it about 50-100 times harder). Since you wouldn't be responsible for the payment anyway, adding security for online transactions provides the company with less liability. As for the security of your information online, that's trickier. It depends entirely on the site you're using whether they've implemented the appropriate security measures or not (and, given the SSL attacks we've seen, even that might not help). (source: I'm a web developer, and have worked on payments systems before that implemented the security mandated by the cards). At the very least never, ever type in your information on a non-https site (there's normally a little \"\"lock\"\" icon that will display if you're on HTTPS instead of HTTP).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f584304446560ac54028376a2877659d",
"text": "Why wouldn't one of the existing crowdsourcing systems meet your needs? Yes, they charge a commission, but they have already addressed the issues you raise and specifically they provide the third-party accounting you want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e66617ea5c04aa50aa15c8beb05dc26",
"text": "I suppose but it's probably all handled by the individual payment operators, not ck Louis. For instance, several online merchants I go to have their own payment system PLUS PayPal PLUS google checkout, and sometimes even instructions for check payment or something. I can imagine dwolla fitting in the list.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5863e29e5b47fbfcb177771756856fd6
|
RRP/list price/retail price and cars?
|
[
{
"docid": "9adbfcff4d4780479c1deb5a8d63900e",
"text": "\"The retailer can sell for whatever price they like, with the caveats that if they consistently sell at a loss they will go out of business and if they set the price too high they will not sell anything! As you mentioned, RRP is only a recommended price, the manufacturer cannot enfore it at all for legal reasons. Having said that I used to work in retail (not cars) and if we discounted a certain manufacturers products and they found out about it, we would find they had suddenly run out of stock when we tried to order more. So manufacturers do have some control over this type of thing depending on how \"\"underhand\"\" they want to be about it. My background is in retail management but not selling cars, but my understanding is the law regards RRP is the same.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eacfee9951381bebcf1c60ba969680d7",
"text": "\"I'll echo: many factors. Brand: There are generally two levels of pricing: \"\"major brand\"\" and \"\"discount brand\"\". You can generally expect the \"\"discount brand\"\" to cost about 5-10 cents less per gallon in the same neighborhood as \"\"major brand\"\" gas. This is for a number of sub-factors; chief among them is that not all gasolines are created equal. A lot of the major brands (Shell, Texaco, Chevron, BP, Exxon) have proprietary detergents and cleaning agents that the discount brands do not. They're also generally closer to the real octane rating of the gas, have less ethanol (you'll see the sign that says \"\"contains up to 10% ethanol\"\"; the bargain brands are right up at that limit while the top-tier brands keep it lower) and have stricter requirements about storage tank maintenance. Anyone who tells you that all gas is the same, send em my way; I tried to save a few bux buying the cheaper stuff and now my car needs an engine overhaul because of fouling causing premature wear. A couple of my co-workers got a fuel system overhaul free from the local supermarket because the storage tank wasn't properly purged, and they got water into their gas tanks. Market Price: Yes, this is of course a factor. Generally, gas prices at the pump rise very quickly when the market price of crude or gasoline goes up, then fall more slowly than the market price, because the margins on gas sales for a C-store are very slim. When prices change, the C-stores lose either way; when prices rise they have to pay more than they got from the last tankful to buy the next one, and when prices fall they don't recoup the cost of their current tank. By quickly increasing the price to match commodities market prices, then gradually lowering them over time even if the market collapses, they mitigate the losses both ways. Overhead: A gas station right next to a highway probably had to pay more for that land, both to buy/lease it and in property taxes. Nicer (newer, cleaner) stations generally have to pay more to stay that way. The higher your operating costs, the more you'll have to charge for your gas. You can usually do so because the nicer station will attract customers willing to pay a few cents more for the nicer facilities. Taxation: Most States charge a tax on gasoline, in addition to a Federal tax on gas. That revenue either goes into the State's general fund, or is earmarked for transportation costs like road maintenance. California's gas prices are sky-high across the state, because they have the highest gas tax. I'm not sure Colorado, Wyoming and Montana have gas taxes at all. Proximity to other stations: No matter what you have to pay for the land and facilities, if there's another station across the street, you have to be within a penny of their price or people will vote with their feet. While \"\"predatory pricing\"\" (taking a loss on sales in one area, buffered by profits elsewhere, in order to drive out competition) is technically illegal, you see it all the time in the C-store industry and it is very difficult to prove. This is a primary cause of neighborhood-to-neighborhood changes; a C-store will look around the other stations on their street corner, and the ones down the road a block or two each direction, when determining what they can sell gas for that day. The guy five blocks down has a completely different pool of competing stations. Population Distribution: With a lot of people in a particular area, there's a big \"\"pie\"\" of customer dollars for C-stores to compete for. This generally leads to increased prices because the stations don't have to be AS cutthroat; regardless of how good your price is, you have only so many pumps, and at some point people will pay more to use the open pump than wait for the cheaper one. The reverse is true in rural areas; with only two stations in an entire small town, those two stations will become extremely cutthroat. However, rural prices also vary more; with only one station in easy walking distance from where you ran out of gas, they can charge you $6 to fill that gallon gas can if they want, and you'll pay it because the next gas station's another 20 miles down the road and probably has even higher prices. This, along with overhead, is generally why the Rockies states have the lowest average prices; land's cheap and people are scarce in Wyoming. But, the \"\"price-gouging\"\" can be seen in the rural Southwest, where there's a LOT of ground to cover between gas stations, and so the \"\"last chance gas\"\" along major highways just outside of town, each a nickel to a dime more than the previous station, is a common stereotype. Transportation costs: Prices are higher on the East and West Coasts than in the Gulf States for a very simple reason; the bulk of the U.S. refinery capacity is along the Gulf Coast between Galveston and the Florida border. The further you are from there, the more it costs to get the fuel from the refinery to the gas station, and that cost is reflected at the pump. In fact, the East Coast imports gasoline by tanker even though the United States is now a net exporter of gasoline, because it's cheaper to buy it from foreign sources than it would be to watch it drip through the limited pipeline capacity that exists between the Gulf states and the Eastern Seaboard.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acb6347e5d3d910611bd8d83452fe9dc",
"text": "\"He sounds like a very bad salesman and I should know, because I was a sales manager at a bike shop which sold bikes from $200 to $10k. Now I had a clear goal, which is to sell as many bikes at the highest price possible, but I didn't do that by making customers uncomfortable. Each customer received different treatment depending on what they were looking for. For example, the $200 beach cruiser buyer was going to be told \"\"You look great on that bike... can I ring you up?\"\", whereas the racer interested in saving grams will receive a detailed discussion about his bike options. The $200 bike customer won't have very sophisticated questions (although I could give a lecture on cruisers), so giving out too much info complicates a likely quick impulse buy. On the other hand, we are building a relationship with the racer which will include detailed fitting sessions and time-consuming mechanical service. While I also want to close a high priced sale, it will take several visits to prove both I have the right bike and this is the best shop. But no matter what you were buying, I was always pleasant and unhurried, and my customers left happy. Specifically with this situation of high pressure tactics, the problem is the competition with internet sales. Often customers will have only 2 criteria, the model and the price, and if a shop does not meet both, the customer walks right out. Possibly this sales guy is a bit cynical with his tactics, but the reality is that if you have no relationship with that shop, you fall into the category of internet buyer. One thing the sales guy could have done was not tell you we wasn't going to honor this price if you came back. Occasionally there would be an internet buyer, and I showed no unpleasantness even though internet sellers could crush our brick and mortar shop. I would mention a competitive price and if he bought it, great, and if not, that's just business. As for the buyer, I would treat these tactics with a certain detachment. I would personally chuckle at his treatment and ask if I could kick the tires, an user car saying. I suppose the bottom line is if you are ready to buy this specific model, and if the price is right (and the shop is ethical so you won't get ripped off with garbage), then you have to be ready to buy on the spot. I will point out one horrible experience I had at a car dealership. I came in 15 minutes before closing and a sales person gave me a price almost a third cheaper than list. I wasn't ready to buy on my first visit ever to a dealership and of course, buying a car has all kinds of hidden fees. I asked will this be the price tomorrow, and he said absolutely not. I told him, \"\"so if I come in tomorrow morning, your dealer clock has only gone 15 minutes\"\" but that logic did not register with him. Maybe he thought I was going to spend 15k on the spot and pressure tactics would work on me. I never came back, but I did go another dealership and bought a car after a reasonable negotiation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e118f7b494caf6f02add38f418a4ed4",
"text": "Question 1: Yes Question 2: There is no simple formula. Car insurance is mostly Statistics, because you have so many millions of cases that the variance is really low. This also means that, because the cost can be estimated so precisely, it is difficult to make an offer better than the competitors. For that reason every insurance company makes there own, arbitrary, segmentation of the data which leads them identify low risk groups they can offer a bonus to. Common ones are type of car or and driving experience, but it could be anything that is not forbidden by anti-discrimination-laws. Also additional perks like towing insurance etc. may give them an opportunity do differentiate themselves or to make easy profit. In fact it is a common tactic to offer prices that make close to no profit to fill up your book, then raise tariffs in then following years an make you profit with those who are to lazy to switch.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca5eeab62ad25a710f6f6d4e5a082e79",
"text": "No, this is misbehavior of sales software that tries to automatically find the price point which maximizes profit. There have been much worse examples. Ignore it. The robot will eventually see that no sales occurred and try a more reasonable price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b4bd4cefd270190ccc26a077d32907a",
"text": "I want to add that in my country, Israel, the tax on cars is extraordinarily high. Cars in Israel cost in average twice or more then in the US (for example, a new VW golf with the cheapest configuration costs around 25kUSD). Israel's average salary is lower then US's average salary and the fuel in Israel costs twice. Therefore, having a regular car in Israel costs the same as having a luxury car in the US. Most households have a car. It's all about priorities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1259d4d740cf27053cb763d58171860c",
"text": "\"Suggested way to make the decision to repair or buy: Figure out what it will cost to repair your car. (If necessary, pay a garage to evaluate it \"\"as if your daughter was interested in buying it\"\".) Then think about whether you would pay that much to buy a car just like yours but without those problems. If the answer is yes, fixing it us probably your most cost-effective choice, even if it is a big bill. If the answer is no, consider a used car, and again have the mechanic check it for any lurking horrors before committing to buy it. That avoids the \"\"proprty-line tax\"\" where a new car loses a significant percentage of its value the moment it leaves the dealership. An almost-toy car us virtually indistinguishable from a new car, costs much less, and realistically has about the same expected life span. I bought a new car once -- at about $300 over the dealer's real (as opposed to sticker) cost, since I was willing to take the one he was stuck with from the previous model year. (Thank you, Consumer Reports, for providing the dealer's cost info and making this a five-minute transaction.) If it hadn't suffered flood damage I'd probably still be driving it, and even so I sorta regret not pricing what it would have cost go completely replace the engine. If you really plan to drive it until it is completely unrepairable, you may be able to justify a new car... But realistically buying a one- or two-year-old car would have been a better choice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e513a42cc62175045e50d61a634a5d83",
"text": "If an offered price is below what people are willing to sell for, it is simply ignored. (What happens if I offer to buy lots of cars as long as I only have to pay $2 each? Same thing.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d233f6bf99fad1cc8751ba1049fd362",
"text": "You could consider buying a fairly recent used car from CarMax. They have fixed pricing, and you'd save a good amount of money on the car (since cars lose tons of value in their first year or so).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b792851016cf8ff3dd6156ff029a2333",
"text": "\"So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and \"\"true cost to own\"\" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as \"\"cost to own\"\" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with: Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the \"\"future\"\" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f59c2644669e158fcd62eead224b5bb6",
"text": "\"Yeh sure! You will drive your car, hope the store will have what you look for, in the right size and color, and pay more. Rather than buy on-line. What's next? You will say \"\"it's the fault of the consumer\"\" that they chose to drive cars instead of horses with buggies? Brick and mortar retail can not be the same if you can shop and have huge selection on-line from anywhere were you live.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d656c57d1205ae4ee389bed0fd9b70d4",
"text": "New tires will increase the resale value of the car; while not by the full cost of the tires, it will not be entirely a sunk cost. You'd need to factor that in and find out how much the new tires increase the resale value of the car to determine how much they would truly cost you. However, I suspect they would cost you less than a $25,000 car a year early would. That new car would cost some amount over time - it sounds like you buy a new car every 8 years or so? So it would cost you $25/8 = $3.3k/year. That would, then, be the overall cost of the new car a year early - $3.3k (as it would mean one less year out of your old car, so assuming it was also $25k/8 year or similar, that year becomes lost and thus a cost).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37049d5b4651ff2d2b07af518e8d9f81",
"text": "You already got good answers on why you can't buy a Toyota from the factory, but my answer is regarding to the implied second part of your question: how to avoid haggling. I found a good way to avoid the haggling at a car dealership can be simply to not haggle. Go in with a different attitude. The main reason car dealers list inflated prices and then haggle is that they expect the customers to haggle. It is fundamentally based on distrust on both sides. Treat the sales person as your advisor, your business partner, as somebody you trust as an expert in his field, and you'll be surprised how the experience changes. Of course, make sure that the trust is justified. Sales reps have a fine line to walk. Of course they like to sell a car for more money, but they also do not want a reputation of overcharging customers. They'd rather you recommend them to your friends and post good reviews on Yelp. In the end, all reputable dealers effectively have a fixed-price policy, or close to it, even those who don't advertise it, and even for used cars. Haggling just prolongs the process to get there. And sales reps are people. Often people who hate the haggling part of their job as much as you do. I was in the market for a new (used) car a few months ago. In the end, it was between two cars (one of them a Toyota), both from the brand-name dealer's respective used car lots. In both cases, I went in knowing in advance what the car's fair market value was and what I was willing to pay (as well as details about the car, mileage, condition etc. - thanks to the Internet). Both cars were marked significantly higher. As soon as the sales rep realized that I wasn't even trying to haggle - the price dropped to the fair value. I didn't even have to ask for it. The rep even offered some extras thrown into the deal, things I hadn't even asked for (things like towing my old car to the junk yard).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "400acd072aaf20b5a499893d218bb5d5",
"text": "The car has value, but it is still a depreciating asset. You're paying far more to rent a space to park the car than you are to own and drive it if you look beyond the initial term of your loan. You could buy a space to keep the car, but at $225,000 for a permanent spot, renting is a much better deal. Would you travel home as frequently if you didn't have the fixed cost of a parking space rental giving you incentive to make the most of the car since you're paying for it either way? My additional question is whether the freedom to travel home on a whim is worth more than the financial freedom you would gain by investing the money for the long term. I don't think it's irresponsible if the short term freedom contributes significantly to your sense of well-being, but even if it isn't entirely sunk cost, the majority of it is. The only way you can really know whether it's worth it to you would be to park the car at home for a month or two to see if you can live without it. Fortunately you don't lose much money in this experiment, since you're only paying 1.9% interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62a47d5486de209fbe85d63ca4739c75",
"text": "As someone who's currently shopping for some winter wheels and has the raised blood pressure to go with that, I've got a few suggestions as to what would make me pick up the phone and call your or email you if you're advertising a vehicle. Keep in mind that if you're willing to deal with the additional hassle, you'll normally get the most money for a used car if you sell it privately. If it is worth the additional effort though is both a matter of judgement and if you're willing to put up with strange people like me :). Depending on the value of the vehicle and its rarity/desirability, you're looking at newspaper ads (probably won't get you much of a response these days), craigslist, Autotrader and similar, and last but not least, ebay. If you're trying to sell something that's easy to find because there are five at every street corner (think beige minivan), skip ebay. If it's worth below 5k-6k, I wouldn't bother with places where you have to pay to advertise, which leaves CL for the cheap stuff - that said, I'd still stick it on CL if it's advertised in other places. Heck, it's free after all. The figure out what sort of money you're asking for. Check the resources like KBB.com and have a look at your local CL for similar vehicles. Out here, certain types of vehicles (for example, Jeeps) sell quickly and often above even KBB.com. A little market research will help you come up with a good price. Just don't do things like asking a massively inflated price for a vehicle because you paid $x five years ago. All this shows that you have no idea what your vehicle is worth. Oh, and I'd always work out what the minimum I'd take is - leave yourself some haggle room but don't undersell the vehicle. Once you know where you advertise and for how much, pull together the basic facts for your vehicles and the points that would make it stand out. Basic facts about the car should include engine size, type of transmission, if it's AWD (where applicable), mileage. Color I can see on the pictures, but it's nice to include that, too. If you have service records, recently replaced a big ticket item (think transmission or similar) or had a very recent service, especially a big one where you had a timing belt and waterpump changed, mention it. Don't say the vehicle has a new engine if that was put in 100k miles ago, that's nice to mention but it's not new. If nobody's ever smoked in it, mention it. If it's got other outstanding features (super low mileage, summer only use etc) make sure to mention it that, too. Next, if it's got any faults that you know of - especially obvious ones - disclose them. People like me will most likely find the leaking shock absorber and the rust holes in the floor anyway, and it makes a much better impression if you do tell us about them beforehand. Trying to tell someone that your banana-shaped car that looks like the Blue Man Group used it for practise is actually pristine and accident-free isn't going to go down very well. Next, pull together the paperwork - make sure you've got the title (if there is a lien on the title, check with the lienholder before advertising the car so you know their procedure for releasing the title), any maintenance records you have, manuals, receipts etc. If the vehicle has a salvage title, try to find out why and mention it in the ad. I've just had a comedian phone me while I was driving to see his vehicle and leave a message that he didn't have a title and didn't seem to be willing to bother to get one, either. Obviously that put me in the right frame of mind, given that it was a 200 mile round trip. So don't do it - if you can't get a title, the schmuck you sold it to will have even less of a chance of getting one. And given that you are in California, a lot of people (including myself) react really badly to three years' worth of back registration, missing smog, expired registrations on something I'd expect to test drive etc. Essentially anything that would stop a potential cash buyer to drive it away on the spot. Next, clean the car - you know, the five years' of accumulated McD wrappers and inch thick layer of dirt (I'm only partially kidding, I've seem some pretty horrible stuff recently). Spend the two hours it takes to clean it or pay to have it valeted or detailed. Clean, shiny cars sell a lot better than a rolling recycling container. Oh, and last - make the effort take some decent photos. The more the merrier, shot in daylight (no photographing a black car after sunset) and if there is any damage, an additional photo or two showing the damage would be nice. Stick the on photobucket or similar and put the links in your craigslist ad so you don't restrict yourself to the microscopic photos that you normally get on there. As to payment, I'd either take cash, meet the buyer at his bank where he draws out a cashiers check in front of your eyes, or, well, cash. No Kauri shells, deeds on bridges in Brooklyn or anything else. Be prepared to take a deposit - a lot of buyers aren't willing to wander around with ten large ones in the back pocket to go look at a car - and spell out exactly how long the deposit is good for. I also tend to make them non-refundable (buyer doesn't pick up the car within the negotiated timeframe, you keep the deposit as 'damages' for not being able to sell it to another cash buyer). Check your DMV's website as to what exactly you need to do once you sold the car. Here in Nevada it's the buyer's problem on how to move it as you keep the plates, but I know in California the regular plates (not personal ones IIRC) stay with the vehicle and I think you need to inform the DMV that you sold the vehicle. I'd also keep a record of who I sold a vehicle to (name, address from his drivers license, license number etc) just in case they run a few red lights and accumulate a few grands' worth of parking tickets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "438bad75d87d85c9b5fcb2144e7da298",
"text": "Ideally you would negotiate a car price without ever mentioning: And other factors that affect the price. You and the dealer would then negotiate a true price for the car, followed by the application of rebates, followed by negotiating for the loan if there is to be one. In practice this rarely happens. The sales rep asks point blank what rebates you qualify for (by asking get-to-know-you questions like where you work or if you served in the armed forces - you may not realize that these are do-you-qualify-for-a-rebate questions) before you've even chosen a model. They take that into account right from the beginning, along with whether they'll make a profit lending you money, or have to spend something to subsidize your zero percent loan. However unlike your veteran's status, your loan intentions are changeable. So when you get to the end you can ask if the price could be improved by paying cash. Or you could try putting the negotiated price on a credit card, and when they don't like that, ask for a further discount to stop you from using the credit card and paying cash.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a74193012c48c21d399a3306d809d658
|
Can a company donate to a non-profit to pay for services arranged for before hand?
|
[
{
"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": "577e71f18a181d82dd8514aef826d53e",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"donate\"\", it usually assumes charitable donation with, in this context, tax benefit. That is not what happens in your scenario. Giving someone money with the requirement of that someone to spend that money at your shop is not donation. It is a grant. You can do that, but you won't be able to deduct this as charitable donation, but the money paid to you back would be taxable income to you. I respectfully disagree with Joe that its a wash. It is not. You give them money that you cannot deduct as an expense (as it is not business expense) or donation (as strings are attached). But you do give them the money, it is no longer yours. When they use the money to pay you back - that same money becomes your taxable income. End result: you provide service, and you're the one paying (taxes) for it. Why would you do that?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1e9de6bde558a7a9c306e7bb433c5b2",
"text": "\"Can a company say \"\"StackExchange\"\" donate to a non-profit company say $5,000 in agreement that they will spend that on paying a designer for a new website? And most importantly is this donation still tax deductible? A non-profit would have to typically create a bucket for IT Services or Website design. As long as \"\"StackExchange\"\" specify they employ a profession service to get it done, there would be no issue. If \"\"StackExchange\"\" were to specify an individula/company it would be an issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61c62156ed9656c4e8c2a794bfa0102",
"text": "People put conditions on donations all the time. They donate to the Red Cross for a specific disaster. The donate money to a church for the building fund. They donate money to a hospital to buy a new x-ray machine. They donate money to the scouts for a new dining hall. It is possible to donate money to a non-profit for a specific purpose. If the non-profit doesn't want to accept the money with those strings they can refuse. Generally these specific projects are initiated by the non-profit. But there is no requirement that the idea originate with the non-profit. It is also up to the non-profit and their legal advisers regarding how strictly they view those strings. If you donate money for web design and they don't spend it all, can they pay net years hosting bill with the money, or must they hold it for a few years for when they need a designer again? If the company wants to provide the service, they can structure the project to pay their employees for their time. They pay employees for $100 of labor while deigning the website. The pay and benefits reduce profit thus lowering taxes. Donating money to the non-profit to be given back to the company doesn't seem to be the best way to structure transaction. At best it is a wash. Donating money to a charity and then directing exactly which contractor will perform the service starts to look like money laundering, and most charities will get wary.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b4fe471620d50e5a84a040ceb454af1",
"text": "It's wrong in several situations: One, the business owner counts this as a business expense, which it is not, and therefore reduces the company's profit and taxes. That would be tax avoidance and probably criminal. Two, someone who is not the sole owner counts this as a business expense, which it is not, reduces the company's profit and when profits are shared, the company pays out less money to the other owners. That's probably fraud. Third, if the owner or owners of a limited liability company draw out lots of money from the company with the intent that the company should go bankrupt with tons of debt that the owners are not going to pay, while keeping the money they siphoned off for themselves. That would probably bankruptcy fraud. Apart from being wrong, there is the obvious risk that you lose control over your company's and your own expenses, and might be in for a nasty surprise if the company has to pay out money and there's nothing left. That would be ordinary stupidity. If you have to tell your employees that you can't pay their salaries but offer them to admire your brand new Ferrari, that's something I'd consider deeply unethical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f348457c71a3f110b33448af70a9348d",
"text": "Yes, the business can count that as an expense but you will need to count that as income because a computer = money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "753e8edbb46508730877c3b05fc8812f",
"text": "An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0436dec2a966beeef456ac1afa55a3",
"text": "not if it's only Bob and a couple others that are having the problem. The company is spending more money on the wages of the guy helping him out than what Bob brought to the company with his purchase. There's no sense in paying for a customer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aded402bd51de6c5e624d61882af5c79",
"text": "I'm not a lawyer and someone more knowledgeable than I will probably respond to this inquiry. I worked with nonprofits for years however. My suggestion would be that the Board would have a resolution allowing the Director to approve any contract below a certain dollar amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36bc3419347f5ab9a094d1c7d866fbae",
"text": "\"Anything is negotiable. Clearly in the current draft of the contract the company isn't going to calculate or withhold taxes on your behalf - that is your responsibility. But if you want to calculate taxes yourself, and break out the fees you are receiving into several \"\"buckets\"\" on the invoice, the company might agree (they might have to run it past their legal department first). I don't see how that helps anything - it just divides the single fee into two pieces with the same overall total. As @mhoran_psprep points out, it appears that the company expects you to cover your expenses from within your charges. Thus, it's up to you to decide the appropriate fees to charge, and you are assuming the risk that you have estimated your expenses incorrectly. If you want the company to pay you a fee, plus reimburse your expenses, you will need to craft that into the contract. It's not clear what kind of expenses you need to be covered, and sometimes companies will not agree to them. For specific tax rule questions applicable to your locale, you should consult your tax adviser.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77ab62b35ae2e993a581105bd61da212",
"text": "To expand a little on what littleadv said, you can only deduct what something cost you. Even if you had done volunteer work for a charity as a sole prop you could only deduct your actual costs. If you paid an employee to do charity work or to learn something related to the business that would be deductible as a normal business expense. Some common sense would show that if you could deduct something that didn't cost you anything (your time) you could deduct away all of your income and avoid paying taxes altogether. Back to your more nuanced question could 2 businesses you own bill each other for services? Yes, but you will still have to pay taxes for money earned under each of them. You will also need to be careful that the IRS does not construe the transactions as being done solely to lower your tax bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b48b96a62ca738ac2d397121a24ed968",
"text": "\"Note: I have no experience of attempting what is described below (neither am I a lawyer nor an accountant). The process may range from a \"\"small bureaucratic hurdle\"\" to a \"\"complex legal nightmare\"\". If it seems a plausible approach, you would probably be well-advised to reach out to others that have established CASCs for help and guidance. According to this HMRC page the two ways a body can claim Gift Aid is if either it is a recognised charity or if it is a Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC). So one option may be to try and establish a CASC. I suspect that this is unlikely to be an easy process, but may be a more likely approach than trying to get the council to establish a charity. The Register as a community amateur sports club (CASC) page on the HMRC site (very) briefly describes the steps; as you can see from their eligibility criteria, to register as a CASC, you would first have to create a \"\"Sports Club\"\" of some form that: has a formal constitution is open to the whole community and has affordable membership fees is on an amateur basis provides facilities in the UK is managed by \"\"fit and proper persons\"\" You would probably need the co-operation of the local council to allow the proposed sports club the use of the local park. One of the (several) requirements of becoming a CASC is that it must: So it could, in theory, be possible to spend money raised (through both membership fees and Gift-Aid-qualifying donations) on the improving the facilities of the park (tennis courts, bowling green etc.). However, note that How to Register page mentions (among many other requirements) the need to provide \"\"accounts from the last 12 months\"\" and \"\"bank statements from the last 3 months\"\". It doesn't (as far as I can see) explicitly state that the club must have been in existence for 12 months before applying for CASC status (it might be possible to send only what you have), but be aware that you may need to establish the club – and let it operate under its own steam – for a period before applying.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d712e4318ff47ff4c92c5ddf4fa22d",
"text": "I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to do, but it sounds like you're trying to create a business expense for paying off your personal debt. If so - you cannot do that. It will constitute a tax fraud, and if you have additional partners in the LLC other than you and your spouse - it may also become an embezzlement issue. Re your edits: Or for example, can you create a tuition assistance program within your company and pay yourself out of that for the purposes of student loan money. Explicitly forbidden. Tuition assistance program cannot pay more than 5% of its benefits to owners. See IRS pub 15-B. You would think that if there was a way to just incorporate and make your debts pre-tax - everyone would be doing it, wouldn't you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac8916af592d24f229674bf1f89c93c2",
"text": "If this is something you plan to continue doing it would make sense to create it as it's own business entity and then to get non-profit status eg: 501c3. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you have to think of it as YOU receiving the money as a sole proprietor - and file a couple more tax forms at the end of the year. I think it's a Schedule C. So essentially if you bring in $10,000, then you spend that $10,000 as legit business expenses for your venture your schedule C would show no profit and wouldn't pay taxes on it. BUT, you do have to file that form. Operating this way could have legal implications should something happen and you get sued. Having the proper business entity setup could help in that situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a93f6ac8c24a679353bd5f3311380fee",
"text": "I see two ways you can handle this. Use the gifts for the purpose of creating more free software. This is fundraising, and your cause is writing free software. The language is a little tricky from the PayPal Donate button (emphasis mine): This button is intended for fundraising. If you are not raising money for a cause, please choose another option. Nonprofits must verify their status to withdraw donations they receive. Users that are not verified nonprofits must demonstrate how their donations will be used, once they raise more than $10,000 USD. You don't have to be a nonprofit; they are only requiring existing nonprofits to verify their status. You don't even have to account for the donations if they are below $10,000. Give out your PayPal email address and instruct the gift-givers to simply send you money through their PayPal interface. They can mark it as a gift when they send the money. I think option one is how the various bloggers and other personal users are justifiying their collection of donations, and I think its a valid use of the PayPal Donate button.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad5b8a7665f87f4c1a7685590461e7f",
"text": "This is tax fraud, plain and simple. I recently wrote an article The Step Transaction Doctrine, in which I explain that a series of events may each be legal, but aggregate to one transaction and the individual steps are ignored. In this case, it goes beyond that, by accepting $5/mo you are already outside the tax code. As littleadv noted, you can't work for a legitimate business for free and not expect to have some kind of issue. The $14K/yr gift isn't a bona fide gift, but ties to that work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "691b6d6029c2f362848881780986f078",
"text": "I think you can. I went to Mexico for business and the company paid for it, so if you are self employed you should be able to expense it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffa2250acc63d88f31a6961a58f380b9",
"text": "I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a1aa189f148fc3ca3168a07be6815e92
|
Can I work with two or more mortgage brokers at the same time?
|
[
{
"docid": "0a8e98b568067901bf114c8c52a8bf27",
"text": "While it is possible, it's not a really good use of your time or theirs. Mortgage brokers have access to dozens of lenders, can assemble deals you can't even dream of, and are much more intimately acquainted with the latest lending rule changes than you are. They are paid by the lenders to bring them business, so there is no cost to you. A mortgage broker has the advantage of leverage because he can be placing 10 mortgages per day, while you will be placing one, once. Your mortgage broker is working on your behalf. Get out of his way and let him do his job so you can concentrate on other matters. If your concern is that you want the lowest rate, share that with your broker and let him find the best rate for you. If you want a deal where you can put a larger prepayment down, let him know that and he will find you what you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06f9623edf85b4082b398d78172ad11a",
"text": "Obviously mate. Mortgage advisors don't have just one client, similarly why should you have only one advisor? it´s an open market. Don't worry about wasting their time, you are not wasting their time if you are considering a mortgage. then, in case you found a better deal with another mortgage advisor then that´s life - someone was better then them.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a192109b0e014b9a0563b0d88a7bb6d3",
"text": "You can definitely get access to cash during the selling of your home and buying of a new one. Think of the home sale and buy as two distinct transactions. As long as your mortgage qualification doesn't depend on all the proceeds from the first sale being rolled into the new mortgage, you'll be fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9654bea102f4b7d56d91111f737d8cde",
"text": "Each goes to a different agency. Yes, it is normal that the lender queries more than one agency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "600627b380e6ff8992b9348e5bac161f",
"text": "There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "174df252db3033dd38bbf830ef5356d5",
"text": "Tell your broker. You can usually opt to have certain positions be FIFO and others LIFO. Definitely possible with Interactive Brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b46cd1cd828458b9853b605028dc8a9",
"text": "\"Your headline question \"\"How do you find best mortgage without damaging credit score?\"\" has a simple answer. If you have all your ducks in a row, and know what you are doing, you will get qualified. If you are like a recent client of mine, low FICO, low downpayment, random income, you might have issues. If your self-prequalification is good, you are in control, go find the best rate/ total cost, no need to put in multiple applications. If, for some reason you do, FICO sees that you are shopping for a single loan, and you are not dinged.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72c6294a241bea25d2691f469ed674e1",
"text": "What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b684811210679ca9ab82c9ab2b31de94",
"text": "I work for a Big4 and there are no shared audit and consulting clients. We go through pretty extreme independence controls to make sure we don't even have personal relationships with clients. I know people who had to refinance their house because the mortgage company became an audit or consulting client. It's a common misconception that big4s audit and provide consulting services to the same firm, but this is not true.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95c7c1e5a083176a72a3d76e28a88ef8",
"text": "Definitely, check if they are regulated by the Finnish financial regulatory board. Google FIN-FSA regulation. It can also be that they are regulated off-shore, no matter just find it out. Besides try to find the terms of you're contract, if cant find ask the broker to point out. Wonder what will happen, following this thread",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3110b4b6766a0e1dac9a4b4944d29138",
"text": "\"Construction loans are typically short term that then get rolled into conventional mortgages at the end of the construction period. Since the actual construction loan is short term, you cannot combine it with a long-term land loan as well. You could do the two separate loans up front to buy the land and finance the construction, then at the end roll both into a conventional mortgage to close out the land and construction loans. This option will only work if you do all three through the same lender. Trying to engage various lenders will require a whole new refinance process, which I very much doubt you would want to go through. These are sometimes called combo loans, since they aggregate several different loan products in one \"\"transaction.\"\" Not a lot of places do land loans, so I would suggest first find a lender that will give you a land loan and set an appoint with a loan representative. Explain what you are trying to do and see what they can offer you. You might have better luck with credit unions as well instead of traditional banks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "381563a5ff5f8c8db9c154df4fd540d0",
"text": "Run the numbers in advance. Understand what are the current rates for an additional 2nd mortgage, what are the rates for a brand new mortgage that will cover the additional funds. Understand what they are for another lender. Estimate the amount of paperwork involved in each option (new first, new 2nd, and new lender). Ask the what are the options they can offer you. Because you have estimated the costs in money and time for the different options, you can evaluate the offer they make. What they offer you can range from everything you want to nothing you would accept. What they offer will depend on several factors: Do they care to keep you as a customer?; Do they expect you to walk away?; are they trying to get rid of mortgages like the one you have?; Can they make more money with the plan they are offering you? You will be interested in the upfront costs, the monthly costs, and the amount of time required for the process to be completed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "191114aa87beae0c543c032e10e7c271",
"text": "It might be worth talking to a mortgage broker, even if you don't actually end up doing business with them. Upfront Mortgage Brokers explained Finding an upfront broker near you In a nutshell, upfront brokers disclose what they are paid for their services openly and transparently. Many brokers don't, and you can't be too careful. But a consultation should be free. An experienced broker can help you to navigate the pros and cons mentioned by the other responders. Personally, I would never do business with a broker who can't/won't show me a rate sheet on the day of the lock. That's my personal acid test. You might be surprised by what the broker has to say regarding your situation. That was my experience, anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69003ef4b8e5329aecf0172a01c19054",
"text": "Although this is possible with many brokers, it's not advisable. In many cases you may end up with both trades executed at the same time. This is because during the opening, the stock might spike up or down heavily, bid/ask spread widens, and both of your orders would get picked up, resulting in an instant loss. Your best bet is to place the stop manually sometime after you get filled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba2428b923a0e7dab801eb370c32c17b",
"text": "\"It's legal. That's what a home equity loan is, for example. More generally, what you're talking about is a \"\"second mortgage\"\". It has no effect on the primary mortgage that you've already made to your bank; they're still secured, and if you get foreclosed, they get paid, and only if there's something left over does the second mortgage holder get anything. That's why second mortgages are more risky than first mortgages, and why you might have trouble finding someone willing to do it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67a2ae48c781807568889aa87614e451",
"text": "It doesn't matter. You will just renew your mortgage at the prevailing rates. That's part of the mortgage contract. The problem that happens is if you want to move your mortgage to another bank for a better rate, they may not accept you. Your re-negotiating position is limited. Most mortgages have a portability option where you can even transfer the mortgage to another property, but you'd have to buy a cheaper house.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b6f0a300b064f52122c63b352845b87f
|
How to find a reputable company to help sell a timeshare?
|
[
{
"docid": "485867b7db6cf10526600553b243658c",
"text": "You are right to be skeptical of timeshare listing companies. As you can imagine, it is very difficult to actually sell a timeshare. You know firsthand how awful they are; it takes trickery to sell them. True story: In my office building years ago, the office across the hall was occupied by a timeshare listing service. One day about a dozen FBI agents showed up and raided the office. As with any service company like this, you can sometimes find reviews on the Better Business Bureau. As an alternative, instead of trying to sell your timeshare, you may want to hire a lawyer to try to get out of it. I have absolutely no experience with this, but I have heard advertisements on the radio for one such firm called Timeshare Exit Team. There may be others that do the same thing. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "167991b1b13c5195d70f3f669f2d4a77",
"text": "The one thing I would like to add to Ben's answer is that you will be lucky to get out of this with no proceeds. So that 30-40K paid for the timeshare maybe a total loss. If this purchase was financed with the timeshare used as collateral you may need to pay it off prior to being released. One tactic I heard used is to offer the sales team, that sold you the timeshare, a bonus for selling yours instead of one out of inventory. Assuming their commission is typically 25% of the sales price, you might consider offering them 40% or some higher figure. Doing it this way, you will have all the slick marketing on your side probably generating the highest amount of revenue possible. Timeshares are really bad deals. If you know this you can score some cheap vacations by attending their seminars and continuing to say no. The wife and I recently got back from a nice trip to Aruba mostly paid for with airline points, and a 2 hour timeshare tour.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5b11f0dc0e0798f041dd1a545f5c593",
"text": "You own something with very little market value - even if you paid a large price for it initially. Your cost to sell may be more than the price you get. Like any other item that has limited resale value, your best option may be to donate it. A quick Google search will turn up some options. This will likely be less hassle than selling. Also, you have a potential tax write-off.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6808e0317dcff7bba730c53f273e3cc3",
"text": "I used to work as a sale support for one of these companies. As a sale support I didn't get commission from the sale but a sale manager did and he made good money. However, I ended up doing a lot of the sales myself and never got any commission for it (even though the boss kept promising me that I would get them). It's relatively easy money, but I felt like you have to sell your soul a little. It's hard to justify for yourself that a 30% interest for a 6 month term is a great deal so you can get your guests to take the loan. Most of the clients you will likely get are the ones who 1) have little knowledge about finance and/or 2) cannot get a loan anywhere else. Nobody would get a loan with these companies if they have a better choice. I also found it was borderline harassment for my clients because I was forced to constantly call them few times a day to get them into taking our loan offers. I did end up leaving the company after three months because the boss was disrespectful, degrading and thought he could do it all himself. Back to your question, it is not shady mostly because it's definitely legal but the sales tactics can be. That would depend on your management but I would say most companies probably employs similar tactics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02652a2907593af155500446726db5b3",
"text": "Usually your best bet for this sort of thing is to look for referrals from people you trust. If you have a lawyer or other trusted advisor, ask them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feef54940cc10880942d031d9ebca43d",
"text": "Then you want to contact the chain's *franchise development* department -- they typically offer a deal in which you obtain the financing and run the hotel, but they provide you with the brand and various kinds of help. For example: http://development.ihg.com/contact-us http://hiltonworldwide.com/development/develop-hotel/ https://hotel-development.marriott.com/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6866849654471563690ca6a64e49f17",
"text": "Timeshare and resort packages are a popular option for people who take frequent vacations. But are they a good deal? Many people sign up due to attractive sales pitches but are then disappointed by the actual package. It's a good idea to read reviews from experienced travelers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fda430a362f25a1a2fad2fbdc7ebceb7",
"text": "\"I find the sun country airline a unique example, it is owned by Marty Davis, CEO of Cambria (a countertop / stone tile company). They use the airline to promote their countertop business with in- flight magazines and even and Cambria logo on the door of the plane as you walk in. I have been a fan of Sun Country for a long time, but recently a new CEO took over and there was a memo leaked that they are going to start operating like an allegiant or Spirit \"\"super-discount\"\" airline. I hope not, I choose sun country for the people that operate their planes and for the simple, no-bullshit, I buy a ticket, I get bags and a checked Bag is $25. So far it's the only airline that I am a fanatic for, and I hope that their culture isn't sold in a race for the bottom dollar. I am pretty sure that Marty Davis bought Sun Country with a deep discount after the Petters Group Worldwide Fraud became known. Full history with some financial information if you're interested. It obviously isn't a \"\"Big\"\" Airline, but I am still a big fan. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Country_Airlines\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d28f509df354182aa8f43951f355c0a6",
"text": "Do we need salespeople anymore? Do I need someone who may or may not know their shit when I can research online with various sources? Paying all these salespeople who come off as forcing a deal isn't what 2017 retail should be about. Go in your BB. Look at potential TV buyers ask questions. Then listen to the salespeople. We have Magnolia in BB around here and they actually know what they are talking about but most BB without them do not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44773b791dd461b802c3133874e8f7e3",
"text": "Sales are useless. Profit determines value. Others made good suggestions, but make sure you don't personally guarantee anthing. Understand your requirements to continue having the investor involved. Understand who has approval authority and decision making authority, ie are you a hired gun or the managing owner? Finally, probability of success is low, so do your homework, bust your ass, and understand when you will wall away (ie if you aren't profitable in 3 years, or below $500k in rev, etc)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ec2b8ad9b3230f1e40022f27b2155ca",
"text": "When you take the tourist to buy tickets, show them where and which one to buy. I didn't like how my tuk Tuk driver just sat there and pointed to where I had to go. Explain to tourist what the price ranges are for a tour guide. I wouldn't recommend a specific tour guide because we all hate being coerced into paying people services, we will think you are all one big business.l and we don't like that! Tripadvisor and business cards is a great idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33161b51d58d4c2c9bf01f92465e2220",
"text": "Thanks everyone. Just how would you suggest I incentivize a customer base that is 90% vacationers. Not really repeat every year visitors. Those would be easy. A discount on the next dive. But for the people who are just on honeymoon. They stop in and want to dive one day or rent snorkel gear and they never come back. We need something that we can give them after the fact since they pay up front.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "067b64b62ef5863866fda766820f65ae",
"text": "\"The recommendation is not to make the investment. In general, a company does not have to sell their shares to you or allow you to become an investor, because, as you have stated, it is a private company not quoted on the stock market. If everyone were trustworthy, you could buy the tools for $11000 -- so that you own the tools -- and sign a lease of the tools to the company whereby they pay you $X/month. The lease should be reviewed by a lawyer before it is signed, and perhaps give the buyer the right to demand back the tools at any time. However, even this arrangement is very risky, because the \"\"company\"\" could simply steal or damage the tools and disappear. It is not an investment that I would make, because it sounds too good to be true. $2800/mo steady cash flow for $11,000 invested. No, I don't think so. The following information may also be useful, either to you, or future readers: If you still want to make this investment, then you should know that: The offering for sale of shares by companies located in the USA is subject to a wild array of complex laws. This is true in many other countries as well. These laws, called securities laws or regulations, can require certain disclosures, require that investors have a high net worth so that they can afford to lose the money or conduct their own investigations and legal actions, or require that the investors know the company founders personally, and can prohibit or limit resale by the buyer/investor. Promoters who say you can still invest and are ignoring or disobeying the securities laws are being at least negligent, but more likely are dishonest and probably criminal. Even if you trust in the investment, can you trust negligent managers to do a good job executing that investment? What about dishonest managers? What about criminals and thieves?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c930926902e10d8b135a90ddfbcc9a",
"text": "THANK YOU so much! That is exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately I'm goign to be really busy for 7 days but I'd love to tear through some of this material and ask you some questions if you don't mind. What do you do for a living now? Still in real estate? Did you go toward the brokerage side or are you still consulting? What's the atmosphere/day-to-day like?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5442e35669d842a3d5e0e25e082bc9b",
"text": "I ended up getting a letter in the mail a while later from Florida Treasure Hunt, and I did end up getting something from it. This brings up a very interesting find: Florida Treasure Hunt must first sell the listings to third-party companies to see if they can get your business. That's the only explanation I have for what happened.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aad964023bfe20997bec03f865987ce6",
"text": "\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baeda48ad38b88a95a6cbfd626419096",
"text": "I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "441f95afd6f679724e6c737d8e4a9369",
"text": "Why should I give you a single minute of my time? Until you can answer that question, it doesn't matter *how* you go about reaching them. You have to look at it like sales situation. Unless you can demonstrate value to them within the first couple of sentences, you won't be given the time of day. These guys get pitched all day long -whether it's their employees, investors, people looking for investments or people looking for a mentor. I'd suggest looking locally first. Go to a couple business association meetings in your area (a lot of them are free or cost under $50). These meetings almost always have time for networking, but you'll only get out of it what you put into it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6b37f0d0a2c6c7108fb3775cdeadc063
|
Is Amazon's offer of a $50 gift card a scam?
|
[
{
"docid": "e9bac1027ee2d9a25304a0689621aa4a",
"text": "These kinds of credit card offers are incredibly common. More often you will get a certain reward if you spend $X within Y days of getting the card. In many cases you can take advantage of them with very little downside. However, are you responsible enough to have a credit card and be able to pay off the balance every month? If not the interest charges could quickly wipe out the $50 bonus you get. And hard inquiries and new accounts could potentially affect your credit score, particularly if you don't have a well-established credit history. There's also the chance you get denied in which case you add a hard inquiry to your credit report for no gain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b02f072b9ce5130ff5a25e31797035",
"text": "\"What's going on here is that Amazon/visa thinks that the money they will earn on average from irresponsible credit card users is more value than 50$ 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": "16e30183af068872836fb8efc27c0db3",
"text": "\"The most likely reason for this card is that Amazon has an arrangement with the issuer (I believe that that used to be Chase; may have changed since). Such an arrangement may allow Amazon to take the risk of chargebacks, etc. in return for the issuer handling the mechanics of billing. This is advantageous for Amazon, as otherwise they are subject to both their own procedures and those of the issuer. Amazon would rather take the entire risk than share it with someone else who charges for the privilege. Fees for processing credit cards can be as much as 5%, although 1-2% is more typical. Due to its size, Amazon may already have negotiated fees lower than 1%. But even so, any savings they make are to their benefit. Further, now they can get a share of the fees charged to other merchants. For example, if you buy a book from Barnes & Noble (an Amazon competitor) with the Amazon card, then Amazon gets some money in return, say 1% of the transaction. If the price is the same on Amazon and at Barnes & Noble, you can actually save money with the Amazon card. Amazon gives more \"\"cash back\"\" in the form of gift card balance for an Amazon purchase. So the card may mean that you buy from Amazon when you might otherwise have chosen someone else. If we again assume a 20% margin, they only need $200 of additional purchases to make $40 of profit. Someone who buys $1000 additional on the Amazon site makes them $200 of profit. They're over $160 ahead. Also note that Amazon is only giving you a gift card, which you have to use on Amazon. And it's difficult to spend exactly $50. As a practical matter, most people will buy, say, $60, with $10 of that money. So they sell you $48 of merchandise (their cost, assuming a 20% margin) for $10. They lost $38 on that transaction, but they've lured you into a long term relationship that may return more than that. And they didn't lose the $50 you gained. They only lost $38. Think about it as a marketing cost. Amazon is willing to pay $38 for a long term relationship with you. From their perspective, doing so in such a way that you come out $50 ahead (assuming you would have made the same purchases without this), is a win-win. Because once they have that relationship, they can leverage it to give them savings elsewhere. This is Amazon's approach in general. Originally all their products were drop shipped (from someone like Ingram Micro). They handled the web site and billing while the drop shipper handled inventory and shipping. Then Amazon added their own warehouses. Now they can do all that separately. This is just the same thing for buyers. Amazon manages all the risk of the transaction and thus gets all the profit. Because Amazon is managing the credit card risk, they have access to all the credit history. This helps them better determine if that sudden shipment of a $2000 camera to Thailand is a real transaction (you're a photographer who regularly vacations in Thailand) or a fake (you've never been to Thailand in your life and your phone is camera enough). That additional information may itself be worth enough to make the relationship profitable for Amazon. Amazon certainly gets something out of the relationship. You give them money. And you are likely to give them more money with the Amazon card than they would otherwise receive. But you get products in return. Is that a good deal? If you prefer having the products to the money, then yes. Others have suggested that it's the irresponsible credit card users that generate the real profit. I disagree. They generate more revenue in the short term, but then they overspend and declare bankruptcy. Then Amazon loses its money. Yes, they get more interest and fees in that case, but if they lose $1000, they needed to make $1000 in profit just to break even. It's safer to make the smaller short term profits with responsible customers who will continue to be customers for the long term. A steady profit of $100 or $200 a year is better than a one time profit of $500 followed by a loss of $1000 followed by nothing for ten years. Anyway, your question was if you should sign up for the card. If you are planning on doing a lot of shopping on Amazon, you might as well. It gives you cash back. If shopping on Amazon is inconvenient, then perhaps that outweighs the advantage of the card. The \"\"cash back\"\" is just Amazon money. You can't spend it anywhere but Amazon. If each transaction gives you a little bit of Amazon money, you have to keep going back to spend it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24c8948643497766dcc1a78c17bb2d63",
"text": "\"Every financial services company (and cellphone provider, cable and broadband provider, private energy supplier, and so on and so forth - it's turtles all the way down in a market economy) spends \"\"something\"\" to acquire a new customer. Paying attractive college students minimum wage to hand out brochures and branded fidget toys costs money. A 1 million piece postal mailing for a 1% response rate costs money. A TV ad or billboard costs money. A signup enticement of cash or airplane miles costs money. The question is, what does an organization spend per new customer? The amount a company wants to spend has to do with their medium term outlook and overall margins, so it will vary with the business cycle, but a rule of thumb is $100-200 spent for each customer who signs up. The advantage to this particular offer is that it may involve some payments to Amazon, but it includes less labor or cost-per-wasted-contact than alternatives. So there's more in the budget to entice the prospect. Recall, it's a one-time cost, and you gain a relationship where you get 2% of credit processing turnover for the duration of the account; a chance at 19.99% APR financing or other fees; and an opportunity to upsell a mortgage or life insurance or IRA accounts, etc to a known customer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4c87e9c8d152315e652b51979588d3c",
"text": "The 'store card' that Amazon offers gives 5% back on Amazon purchases. Some time ago, when I realized how much of my spending was going through Amazon, I chose that card over this one. If you want the card, that's fine, but if you are going to play the reward game, there are far higher bonuses available for card signups. No, it's not a scam. Many stores will offer a discount at the register the day you sign up for there card. In general, the store cards should also give a discount when used at that store, or airline for that matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4da7bb5d89dee83ddfbc814b49f50ae3",
"text": "Amazon has 2 different cards you can apply for, a store card and a credit card. The credit card is through Chase. The deal is not a scam, I can confirm this because I applied for their credit card and got $70 in the form of a digital gift card. By giving customers free money for signing up for their cards they get more people who are willing to give it a try. Once you have a card, you get benefits like 3-5 percent back on Amazon purchases that will entice consumers to use the card. Amazon likely has an agreement with Chase and they are hoping to get you hooked with the free money and benefits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a90956cd43c5e156a765282c0e5085d",
"text": "\"No. Amazon is a reputable company. Many stores have their own credit card. Additionally they have several cards available, through Visa and Discover. Neither would allow their name to be used knowing that a company was using it to scam people. And credit card companies are used to going after people with the full force of the law on their side. It's the only way they stay in business. I would read the terms and conditions, but as is, it is not a scam. But a free $50 seems to good to be true. Nothing is free. Having their credit card is significant. Look into the ownership of a credit card and how credit card companies make money. And \"\"gift cards for credit cards\"\" are common. In fact, some companies give away money just to fill out an application even if you turn down the card.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "169ccc82e2d86fcbf8bb16740b5b248d",
"text": "\"It's not a scam. They just want you to be an Amazon customer for many years and you'll be advertising Amazon to anyone who sees your credit card. $50 is known as the cost of \"\"customer acquisition\"\" and it is a very good deal for someone who may become a Prime member and spend $1000s a year on Amazon.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab13c8e94669d0061ba71990a2911d94",
"text": "a free $50 looks too good to be true. As others already pointed out, these offers are common to many cards that want you to build loyalty towards a particular company (e.g. airlines cards give lots of mileage for a decent initial spend). Should I get this card for the $50? Why and/or why not? How much do you spend on Amazon, or are planning to do so in future? This offer has been around for ages (earlier they used to offer much smaller amounts of $20 for signing up) and you never saw it. So probably, you won't be really using the site frequently. In that case, its just a matter of whether $50 is worth the hassle for you to sign up and then later cancel (if you don't want to manage another new card). The hit to credit score is likely to be minimal unless you do such offers often. As such, for a person who rarely buys on Amazon I wouldn't advise you to sign up for this card, there are better rewards cards that are not as tied to a particular site (such as Chase Freedom, Discover etc.) If however, you are a regular shopper but just never noticed this prompt earlier; then it is worthwhile to get this - or even consider the Prime version, which you will get or be automatically upgraded to if the account has Prime membership. That gives 5% back instead of 3% on Amazon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56bc6d95b268336280b39839bab6321e",
"text": "it's not a scam. it's not even too good to be true. frankly it's the lowest sign up bonus i've ever seen for a credit card. you would be better off signing up for a flagship card from one of the major banks (e.g. chase sapphire, citi double cash, discover it, amex blue). those cards regularly offer sign up bonuses worth between 400$ and 1000$. however, you can't get all the cards at once. noteably chase has a fairly firm limit of 5 new cards per 24 month. the other banks have similar, less publicized limits on who they will approve for a new card. so, by applying for this amazon card you are hurting your chances of getting far more lucrative sign up bonuses. it is however worth noting that those larger bonuses usually come with a minimum spending requirement (e.g. spend 1k$-3k$ in the first 3 months)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdd3dd91ff757451b0a2770a6cf70218",
"text": "Based on my personal experience with that particular offer, I can say that it's not really a scam. I signed up for an Amazon Credit Card to get $70 off a purchase, but then never used the card. In fact, I never even called to activate it! After a few months, I then called to cancel it. I did not see a significant hit to my credit. However if you do shop frequently at Amazon it may be in your best interest to use their card, because it has other discounts associated with it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "22a87943417c5c159583deeb06fc3e83",
"text": "IANAL, but I'm pretty sure buying something at a store does not enter you in a contract with the store. Also, Target made up the rule about not allowing gift cards and then chose not to enforce it. According to the article, they chose not to enforce it over and over again. In fact, when the promotion ended, Target renewed it with the same terms! Calling these customers cheaters is baseless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60d5c6027151653ea2d0b3f83a24692e",
"text": "No, that's not a fair argument. Obviously that is theft, and the sales associate isn't authorized to do that. She is allowed to act on Target's behalf to process transactions, however. Buying a gift card with a gift card is not theft. At the most it's a breach of a contract, but Target has little resource because it was a mutual breach of contract. A judge would laugh in Target's face if it tried to get its money back after its own employees and managers processed the transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a62da6e75096e48b6a8875bc3163ca43",
"text": "\"There are only two things you can directly do with the money in an Amazon gift card: you can keep the gift card, or you can put the money into your Amazon account. There aren't any other options. You can't deposit the value into a bank account or anything like that. So, as far as safety, those are the only options you need to consider, because there's nothing else you can do. (Okay, there is one other thing you can do: you could sell the card to someone else, or barter it for something you want. But you can do that with anything.) The \"\"gift card\"\" is basicaly just a string of numbers and letters that you put into your Amazon account and it credits you with the appropriate amount of money. So yes, it can be stolen. If you haven't redeemed it yet, someone could find the code by hacking your email or looking over your shoulder or whatever. If they redeem it, you won't be able to do so. As for your edit: If I don't transfer the balance of the Amazon egift card to my Amazon account, can I transfer the balance to other accounts or use the card to buy other gift cards? If you don't transfer it to your account, you can transfer the balance to another account by giving the code to someone else and letting them deposit it in their account. You still won't be able to buy other gift cards with it, because you can't buy anything with it until it's deposited in an Amazon account, and once it's deposited in an Amazon account, you can't buy gift cards with it because of their policy. If you don't want the restrictions imposed by Amazon, don't buy Amazon gift cards; instead, just use your actual money to buy things. If you're worried about the cards being stolen, just deposit them into your account right away and you eliminate the risk of them being stolen. If, as you say, you bought the cards for yourself, there's no reason not to do this; presumably you bought them so you could buy things on Amazon, and you'll have to deposit them into your account eventually anyway to do that, so just put them in right away. I don't know specifically how Walmart cards work, but I assume they're the same. In general, anything called a \"\"gift card\"\" offered by a particular retailer works the same way: you can't do anything with it except buy products at that retailer. The only thing that really makes Amazon different is that the only way to use your card is to add the money to your Amazon account, because the only way to pay for things on Amazon is with an Amazon account. There's no way to spend just some of the value; you have to deposit it all into your account. With gift cards for retailers with physical locations, you can usually use the value up piecemeal, by actually going to a store and spending just enough to buy something. (I assume Walmart works this way, although I don't know if you can use an e-gift card this way there.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cee2f6ca79d788f239484db00eff466d",
"text": "\"Did you even read the article? These were people who went into the store and did this in person. there are no \"\"orders\"\" to cancel. As for invalidating the cards, again, the article stated that many people took the Target gift cards and used them to buy Amex and Visa gift cards. tl;dr **RTFA**\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e117b07e0d45537f0e5663cba134ae15",
"text": "Lmfao. You seriously believe one of the biggest companies in the world is making this deal in order to get into a niche area within the grocery store market... Amazon is competing with Walmart, not Trader Joe's. One of the biggest setbacks with online retail is the cost of heavy items. This will give them the brick and mortar front in order to cut costs and compete effectively across a plethora of items.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01f6ffb4c97ee5a677804038ba4b8f8f",
"text": "Your first one is third party sellers not having their security up to date, and them losing money based on that. Not at all an Amazon issue. Third party sellers used bad security, got hit the same way anyone else would, news at 11. The second one, I assume, is the like 80,000 email addresses, not connected to anything. With, you'll notice, encrypted passwords. >Oh look FUD. This is not an argument. Are you seriously unaware of license plate readers? I mean, I fucking already sent you a link to it. >Quick someone tell Target their customer's credit card info isn't accessible. Someone tell the government leaking your SS#, date of birth, etc, is way worse than that! And it's for all of us! At least companies learn via stock price. It just keeps happening at the govt at a much worse scale. http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/the-7-most-significant-government-data-breaches/d/d-id/1327468",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e151c1cbf2497a78b250d5bf908a283",
"text": "Stupid article. People on government assistance typically don't have a great deal of money to begin with, and there aren't exactly many items on Amazon that are at 'dollar store' level prices..and unless one is house-bound level of disabled, you really can't fill a whole grocery list by shopping at Amazon as you could running down to Walmart or Save a Lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04e09df8643a9e9bf56221aeef4741af",
"text": "\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\"\"yes\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe2123e3797fe49da20d822d2df10329",
"text": "In store pickup at Walmart is atrocious. I've tried it. And, you still have to go to Walmart. Amazon draws the yuppie types who not only like saving money, but also don't have the time to deal with going to stores and sure as hell don't want to go to Walmart of all places.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6f249e0ff2a1eba602fb9da7350447",
"text": "Not so much a scam, if you fill the required paperwork and actually take time to mail it in assuming it's done correctly; you will get your money. That being said, having a mail-in rebate program is usually a win-win for the seller. While they may have to pay a small fee to a third party who handles the rebate almost always this influences a potential buyer to choose a specific product over the alternative. The seller knows very well that very few people will actually go through with it. And yes, they do often make the process needlessly complicated and long as a deterrent. Plus, let's be real, no one likes sending out physical letters anymore. From a marketing standpoint the mail-in rebate is a brilliant idea. However, it's usually more of an annoyance for the consumer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba9c7a098b91c3adfcde14646cd9d9e2",
"text": "Is the VAT scam still on the go? I was under the impression that amazon have to pay vat according to the country the items are shipped to, not shipped from? It will be a complete fuck up on the part of our politicians if this loophole has not been closed yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa3ece4cecb006933c6acff5a5e9000b",
"text": "or is this a form of money laundering? May not be, generally the amounts involved in money laundering are much higher. So if there are quite a few such transactions then yes it could be money laundering. It could also be for circumventing taxes, depending on country regulations one may try to do this to get around gift taxes etc. In this specific case it looks more of link harvesting / SEO optimization. Take a low cost item that is often searched and link to other product. if you see the company link on Amazon; Cougar takes you to shoes. So maybe on its own Cougar shoes does not rank high, so link it with similar name brand in different segment and try to boost the link.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb130f0db03f4c9abf14829270621a9c",
"text": "The media is not reporting this story correctly. The way Amazon will likely monetize this patent is by *preventing* brick and mortar stores from limiting your ability to comparison shop. The reason? Amazon is the primary beneficiary when shoppers check for prices in real time. Sure, maybe Amazon will also use it to prevent comparison shopping in Whole Foods, but I really doubt that is the primary way Amazon intends to monetize the patent. If you're in Whole Foods, you probably aren't interested in going to Safeway, even though you already know it is cheaper.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41738846c29b227d7c9af116f730c97e",
"text": "Ok so Arbitrage? I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards. Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal. Is there a financial term that fits this better?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f90bbdd90cafa17e1bed146d3546934",
"text": "In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
70390f48d81bf9e032fe7d4dfb834e11
|
Where can I find historical ratios of international stock indexes?
|
[
{
"docid": "2229df26d0604672093af0428f8b7c9a",
"text": "I found a possible data source. It offers fundamentals i.e. the accounting ratios you listed (P/E, dividend yield, price/book) for international stock indexes. International equity indices based on EAFE definitions are maintained by Professor French of French-Fama fame, at Dartmouth's Tuck Business School website. Specifics of methodology, and countries covered is available here. MSCI is the data source. Historical time interval for most countries is from 1975 onward. (Singapore was one of the countries included). Obtaining historical ratios for international stock indices is not easily found for free. Your question didn't specify free though. If that is not a constraint, you may wish to check the MSCI Barra international stock indices also.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "477ff98da46062514eaec62de026fd63",
"text": "Center for Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for where to go for US stock price history. Major Asset Classes 1926 - 2011 - JVL Associates, LLC has a PDF with some of the classes you list from the data dating back as far as 1926. There is also the averages stated on a Bogleheads article that has some reference links that may also be useful. Four Pillars of Investing's Chapter 1 also has some historical return information in it that may be of help.",
"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": "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": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc",
"text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39e680ba097f0ffc975fb39a29e5dcd0",
"text": "Check the answers to this Stackoverflow question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/754593/source-of-historical-stock-data a number of potential sources are listed",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66c2e069c3503182b76c10aac73e22e5",
"text": "Thanks to the other answers, I now know what to google for. Frankfurt Stock Exchange: http://en.boerse-frankfurt.de/equities/newissues London Stock Exchange: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/statistics/new-issues-further-issues/new-issues-further-issues.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19626720f85dcf1e74d4b90ea17a917e",
"text": "Another possibly more flexible option is Yahoo finance here is an example for the dow.. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=9&b=1&c=1928&d=3&e=10&f=2012&g=d&z=66&y=0 Some of the individual stocks you can dl directly to a spreadsheet (not sure why this isn't offer for indexs but copy and paste should work). http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=ACTC.OB+Historical+Prices",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb67ec3740545851f323621075d7a83c",
"text": "There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc",
"text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff7f871a450e24d96f85664029365357",
"text": "Investopedia has one and so does marketwatch I've always used marketwatch, and I have a few current competitions going on if you want me to send the link They recently remodeled the website so it works on mobile and not as well on desktop Don't know anything about the investopedia one though",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eb31c0f654543057ea12f777a712330",
"text": "At indexmundi, they have some historical data which you can grab from their charts: It only has a price on a monthly basis (at least for the 25 year chart). It has a number of things, like barley, oranges, crude oil, aluminum, beef, etc. I grabbed the data for 25 years of banana prices and here's an excerpt (in dollars per metric ton): That page did not appear to have historical prices for gold, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "427040f8683b2a11bdd39178e27642de",
"text": "My level of analysis is not quite that advanced. Can you share what that would show and why that particular measure is the one to use? I've run regression on prices between the two. VIX prices have no correlation to the s&p500 prices. Shouldn't true volatility result in the prices (more people putting options on the VIX during the bad times and driving that price up) correlate to the selloff that occurs within the S&P500 during recessions and other events that would cause significant or minor volatility? My r2 showed no significance within a measurement of regression within Excel. But, *gasp* I could be wrong, but would love to learn more about better ways of measurement :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2591ce2451f7d5ac4b526b0f345156c6",
"text": "I use Yahoo Finance to plot my portfolio value over time. Yahoo Finance uses SigFig to link accounts (I've linked to Fidelity), which then allows you to see you exact portfolio and see a plot of its historical value. I'm not sure what other websites SigFig will allow you to sync with, but it is worth a try. Here is what the plot I have looks like, although this is slightly out of date, but still gives you an idea of what to expect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c043eae8ce68058c54aca7a490fff9c7",
"text": "I assume you're after a price time series and not a list of S&P 500 constituents? Yahoo Finance is always a reasonable starting point. Code you're after is ^GSPC: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history?p=^GSPC There's a download data button on the right side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82c2ef3a0f37dfd65929f13ca4d90f18",
"text": "I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cc352c85f76a0a840ee61b164a8ddc8c
|
question regarding W4
|
[
{
"docid": "43f87fe215d44ba35eaef3fddfb5d50a",
"text": "Yes. W4 determines how much your employer will withhold from your wages. Leaving everything at default would mean that your salary is your only taxable income, and you only take default deductions. Your employee will calculate your tax withholding based on that. But, if your salary is >200k, I assume that you have other income (investment/capital gains, interest on your bank account), which you will have to pay taxes on. You're probably going to have some deductible expenses (business/partnership expenses, mortgage interest, donations, college funds etc) as well. So it is very likely, unless you're really not smart about money, that you have more to do with your taxes than just the employers' withholding.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d36d0c9bf5b74b3b2aba95a3a46d601",
"text": "There are still ways that the default values on the W4 can lead you to get a refund or owe the IRS. If there was a big delta in your paychecks, it can lead to problems. If you make 260,000 and get 26 paychecks that means each check had a gross of 10,000. Your company will withhold the same amount from each check. But If you earned a big bonus then the smaller regular paychecks may not have been withholding enough. When bonus checks are involved the payroll office has to treat them as irregular pay to be able to make it work out. Some companies don't do this, so you may under or over pay during the year. If you changed companies during the year, this can lead to under or over payment. The lower paying company would not know about the higher rate of pay at the other company. so at one you would under pay, and the other you would over pay. There are also social security issues with more than one employer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "49fcb429b4cc17c2db360a6d3770a84a",
"text": "Real world case: IRS: You owe us $x. You didn't report your income from job y. My mother: I didn't work for y. I don't even know who y is. IRS: If the W-2 is wrong, talk to them to get it fixed. My mother: I can't find y. Please give me an address or phone. IRS: We can't. You talk to them and get it fixed. I know this dragged on for more than a year, they never mentioned the final outcome and they're gone now so I can't ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59693220508820f78ed4c64e2a59f23a",
"text": "First, we need to be clear about what the allowances on your W-4 mean. The more allowances you claim, the lower tax liability it is assumed that you have, and they will take less tax out of your check. So claiming 2 allowances will result in a bigger paycheck and less tax withholding than claiming 0 allowances would. If you claim 0 allowances, you are in no danger of having too little tax withheld; instead, that would result in the maximum tax withheld. So 0 allowances is certainly an option, if you want to play it safe. This being your first year with these jobs, it's hard to know what to claim on your W-4. When you do your taxes next year, you can see if the withholding was too much or just right; if your refund is too big, you can increase your allowances for next year. That having been said, I don't like getting big refunds; I'd rather have a bigger paycheck all year. If I were you, I'd probably claim 1 or 2 allowances at the new job, and adjust it next year if needed. At your income level, you aren't really in any danger of getting in trouble for having too little withheld. Good luck with the new job. Game testing has always seemed like a dream job to me. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19c1bed44c0810777064c3f77e592123",
"text": "I edited my W4 over several years, trying to get rid of my refund. It's a balancing act, just be careful to not owe more than about $1000 each year. They can hit you with a small penalty. It's never been enough to concern me, but it's there. It's also a balancing act if you get a raise, a bonus, any kind of differences in pay...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d443860bd1eb09e19af7b8465b17d1a",
"text": "The IRS offers an online calculator to help you select the correct number of deductions on your W-4. The tricky part is that we're nearly half-way through the year, so if you add more deductions to offset the lower withholding during the first half of the year, you'll have to update the W-4 at the beginning of next year to correct that next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dc1692967e15601951b68dfe4ad8c44",
"text": "\"So after a great deal of clarification, it appears that your question is how to adjust your withholding such that you'll have neither a refund, or a balance due, when you do your 2016 taxes next year. First, a little terminology. The more you have withheld, the more money will be taken out of your check to cover your estimated tax liability. Confusingly, the more allowances you select on your W-4, the less money you will have withheld (more allowances means more dependents/deductions/other reasons why you will owe less tax). When you go to file your 2015 tax return next year, you'll figure out exactly how much you owe. If you had too little tax withheld, you'll have to pay the difference. If you had too much tax withheld, you'll get a refund back. Given your situation, simply following the instructions on the W-4 should work pretty well. If you want to be more precise, you can use the IRS Withholding Calculator to figure the number of allowances and submit a new W-4 to your employer. It's a little hard to tell whether \"\"paying this much/year in taxes seem steep?\"\" because you've lumped all the taxes together in one big bucket. Does the $543.61 in taxes per paycheck include Social Security (OASDI) and Medicare taxes? Whatever you do, it's not going to be an exact science. Come tax time, you'll figure out exactly what you owe and either pay the balance or get a refund back. As long as you're relatively close, that's fine. You can always adjust your withholding again next year after you've done your taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bae6e8d76b98b2ba96a5520be36c2c8f",
"text": "I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56f67bbeaa7ca7107ea754648e799f3b",
"text": "The reciprocity agreement in the Washington DC area means that you only pay income taxes where you live, not where you work. Because you live in Maryland you only need to pay income taxes to Maryland. You need to do the following things. Line 3. If you are not subject to Virginia withholding, check the box on this line. You are not subject to withholding if you meet any one of the conditions listed below. Form VA-4 must be filed with your employer for each calendar year for which you claim exemption from Virginia withholding. (a) You had no liability for Virginia income tax last year and you do not expect to have any liability for this year. ... (d) You are a domiciliary or legal resident of Maryland, Pennsylvania or West Virginia whose only Virginia source income is from salaries and wages and such salaries and wages are subject to income taxation by your state of domicile. My company has its only office in Maryland, and conducts all of its business there. Several of our employees are Virginia residents who commute to work on a daily basis. Are we required to withhold Virginia income tax from their wages? No. Because your company is not paying wages to employees for services performed in Virginia, you are not required to withhold Virginia tax. If you would like to withhold the tax as a courtesy to your employees, you may register for a Virginia withholding tax account online or by submitting a Registration Application. Additional withholding per pay period under agreement with employer. If you are not having enough tax withheld, you may ask your employer to withhold more by entering an additional amount on line 2.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8b81f8345d86c56215b7b3dd6e4a8c",
"text": "Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acc343e3f8b327a4ea13ba9a21c8bb90",
"text": "Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a403d7de68675f08817c02e9104ea567",
"text": "If you're correct that it's not taxable because it's non-taxable reimbursement (which is supported by your W-2), then it should not go on your 1040 at all. If it is taxable, then it really should have appeared on your W-2 and would probably end up on Line 7 of your Form 1040.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45f7684814dbac7f3eed5ce793c0413b",
"text": "The purpose of making sure you met the safe harbor was to avoid the penalty. Having achieved that goal the tax law allows you to wait until April 15th to pay the balance. So do so. Put enough money aside to make sure you can easily make that payment. I was in this exact situation a few years ago. I planned my w4 to make the safe harbor, and then slept easy even though the house settlement was in May and I didn't have to make the IRS payment unti 11 months later in April.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98e4a30799ac22fdf632c7ade120ac85",
"text": "\"The decision whether this test is or is not met seems to be highly dependent on the specific situation of the employer and the employee. I think that you won't find a lot of general references meeting your needs. There is such a thing as a \"\"private ruling letter,\"\" where individuals provide specific information about their situation and request the IRS to rule in advance on how the situation falls with respect to the tax law. I don't know a lot about that process or what you need to do to qualify to get a private ruling. I do know that anonymized versions of at least some of the rulings are published. You might look for such rulings that are close to your situation. I did a quick search and found two that are somewhat related: As regards your situation, my (non-expert) understanding is that you will not pass in this case unless either (a) the employer specifies that you must live on the West Coast or you'll be fired, (b) the employer would refuse to provide space for you if you moved to Boston (or another company location), or (c) you can show that you could not possibly do your job out of Boston. For (c), that might mean, for example, you need to make visits to client locations in SF on short-notice to meet business requirements. If you are only physically needed in SF occasionally and with \"\"reasonable\"\" notice, I don't think you could make it under (c), although if the employer doesn't want to pay travel costs, then you might still make it under (a) in this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bff7b1e71eaf0a950081fd846171fb7",
"text": "You are correct that W-4s are very confusing for multiple income homes, and even more so if you change salary significantly during the year. There are just too many variables in those situations to provide an effective, simple form. Unfortunately, the best way to get accurate withholdings is trial-and-error. Try and estimate how much tax you'll have to pay for the year. There are several calculators out there, but essentially you can take your gross income, subtract the standard exemptions for you and all dependents, subtract the standard deductions (or estimate your itemized deductions), and compute your tax based on the federal tax tables. Then subtract any tax credits you may be eligible for. Then estimate your withholdings for the year by multiplying your current withholdings by the number of pay periods left, and adding your YTD withholdings. If your total withholdings are higher than your estimated tax, add one or two exemptions to reduce your withholdings (and vice versa). If all that sounds like a lot of work (which it is), at a minimum make sure you withhold as much tax as you paid last year. That way you avoid any tax penalties, but might have a tax bill when you file. If you want to be conservative and withhold a little extra that's fine - you might even end up with a refund when you file. The good news is it doesn't have to be exact; any difference will determine what you pay (or what refund you get) when you file.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07746509e7f31a246a4e6f0403c33e55",
"text": "An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50fe9ddf775a60078442663c5e992797",
"text": "Follow the instructions on the W-4. It says exactly how you are supposed to calculate the number of allowances. You shouldn't have to figure out how to get the right number. Just follow the instructions. The only part at all complex is if you have large deductions. In that case you're supposed to subtract a standard amount from your actual deductions -- for 2017, $12,700 if married filing jointly -- divide by $4,050, and then add the result to the number of allowances. In general, following the instructions on the W-4 should result in slightly more tax being withheld from your paycheck than you actually owe, so that you get a modest refund next April 15. In the long run it doesn't matter if you have too much withheld, as you'll get it all back eventually anyway. I suppose the withholding could be so high that it doesn't leave you enough to live on while waiting for your refund, but that shouldn't normally be the case. If you pay too little, you could be subject to penalties and interest, so you really want to avoid that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9e5bb6733cce9eeae16d9cf7481cda43
|
Does working in finance firms improve a person's finance knowledge?
|
[
{
"docid": "058ffccf654e98b93d5ef8a7a883bb9e",
"text": "It depends what you mean by financial knowledge. Often you will work in a group focused on some aspect of the company's business. As an example, I work for a company and my group works on econometric models. Although I have a degree in finance, I don't encounter or talk about corporate or personal finance. I do talk about investing with a friend, but in general, our group is focused on one aspect of finance and economics for the company. From another direction, often financial companies will offer financial literacy training through HR and benefits programs where you can improve your knowledge of finance outside of your groups focus. In the end, you will learn the most by persuing new knowledge through reading on current financial literature. I hope this helps. Edit: If you add some specifics to what you would like to learn about I may be able to point you in the right direction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fb23f8b4681cc6333d6bf384f78c536",
"text": "Depends on what work you're doing. If you aren't doing a job which involves working with and understanding the data, probably not.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "52c38129bbad6a37eac2b9ba51647e3d",
"text": "Thats exactly what I am looking to do - a career change. My problem is I dont have any relevant experience in finance (and mot much knowledge either). So I planned to do the CFA thinking that I will get some relevant knowledge in order to apply for jobs in the field. As things stand now I dont if I will fare well in an interview if I get a call. You got a job explaining your investments, thats impressive. I wonder if you could tell me, what other things will the interviewers grind you on if an IT guy looks to get into finance without any relevant experience?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9264f560888d9710a4e733bfd34d458d",
"text": "I asked about this in the last thread, but got no answers because it was 4-5 days old at the time. I'm a finance student, and currently an intern at a big Financial Services firm. The internship is in compliance, though, and that's not exactly where I want to end up later. I don't know exactly what I want to do, but I assume there are some skills that are widely applicable in the entire industry that aren't taught enough, and I want to learn something over the summer (through Coursera/books/videos/whatever). The problem is, I don't know what. Does anyone here have any suggestions? I was thinking something along the lines of programming or some more advanced excel stuff that isn't taught in school, but I don't really have any place to start. Any advise would be appreciated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d19dadd1ed109f99fae50b17089479e8",
"text": "Work-life balance is kind of a bad joke if you actually are in a career with high growth potentials imo. It isn't even confined to just finance. Anyone I know with high growth potential jobs, especially during junior years at the firm, will require quite a bit of OT. I'd say most 9-5 jobs do not provide rapid growth in salary / positions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15110213e416340a0b00652a87f35f74",
"text": "To start with the easier one: I went to a large state school that's got a well-ranked business school for undergrad and majored in finance. No masters. The ranking isn't necessary, but the degree (or one similar) probably is just to get into the finance field. You could do treasury work with an accounting degree, and you really could do it with any degree, but a lot of companies might not want to take a chance on you if you don't have at least some applicable knowledge. Typical day: I usually get in around 7:30 and crank out a couple of daily tasks: I gather bank statements and do some minor data entry to come up with a prediction of what our cash is going to look like for the day. Depending on the day, I get into our Bloomberg terminal and send out money for overnight investment or sell commercial paper to raise money on a short term basis. I do some minor housekeeping/accounting work that's mostly system generated, we just check it. I spend the middle portion of my day approving payments, meeting with business groups to help develop our forecast better for the next 30-60-90 days, maybe meet with bankers if they're in the office, maybe do ad hoc work, maybe do debt analysis, etc. Basically this is my free work time. End of the day I gather more bank reports, send out results for the day to leadership and an updated projection of cash flow for the rest of the month. If things get really exciting, I might get to take part in an acquisition, do stuff with bonds, etc. It rarely gets that exciting though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d92328b094a5df3c5d586bf8a4e5f54f",
"text": "\"In finance What kind of amorphous bullshit is that? There are literally hundreds of different things that can varyingly be termed \"\"in finance\"\". If you want the traditional big bank job working as a spreadsheet monkey, very fucking difficult right now. Masters in finance doubling down on a BS: if it's from Princeton, great, if it's from Blue Mountain State, whatever. A CFA is getting common but it might help - it probably won't hurt at least. If you mean \"\"as a big shot trader for a hedge fund\"\" the answer is precisely impossible with only that on your resume. If you mean entry corporate finance, it's certainly possible (although you should not listen to anything I say in this regard as I've successfully avoided learning much about the subject thus far and have no intention of changing that, thus am as roughly as reliable on that as a wet paper towel).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32867ac85a447946c34e228efeab843d",
"text": "\"I actually interviewed to work at the SEC as an \"\"industry transplant.\"\" I was surprised to learn the limits of the SEC's power - namely, they cannot compel anybody to show them any documents - even ones financial firms are required to hold. When firms do \"\"cooperate,\"\" they tend to make it as difficult as possible for investigators. All the SEC can do in the end is sue the firm, and that's a long drawn out process (I understand now why there are so many settlements). What I learned, however, is that the SEC needs more people like myself who have worked in the business. Most people who interviewed me were attorneys and (sometimes) accountants. Their experience in the financial industry was limited to working at legal firms who did financial advisory work. Many simply don't even know what to look for. I'm still waiting to hear back, but there are a lot of lawyers who are sick of working industry jobs and would love the pay and work environment of the SEC - so it's tough to get a position there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56b71f74e23a9f6b4965038946c02242",
"text": "I am newly applying to finance related jobs, my question is, could someone ELI5 what exactly different sectors within finance are? Like capital markets, derivatives, equity research, wealth management. All of this seems overwhelming coming at it at once.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75260e7774ee476972d911e43cb412db",
"text": "\"There are some tedious parts for sure - often times people hear \"\"Finance\"\" and think invoices, accounting, etc., but I would say it's less that 10% of my role. I do handle the budgeting process - what I have enjoyed about that is that it offers a window into the strategy of the firm, and whether they are making investments in areas that align with their strategic objectives. This is another good question to ask as you get to know different teams - does the FP&A/Finance group have a seat at the table in strategic discussions. In any corp fin function, I think you will find that the more finance is valued as a partner to the business, the more interesting your work will be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55dd7aebb55d13bda4e7e34f57f75397",
"text": "I agree. The CFA is nice for students who have the time to take the exam, because it could be a year or two before the start working, so it is a reasonable resume padder (especially if your major is engineer, science, or math and you want to do finance). If you are trying to do a career change, it is important to know the material, because if you don't, then you can't do the job even if someone gives it to you. But passing the test isn't as important as actually applying to the jobs and networking. I switched from engineering to finance (buyside equity analyst). Originally I planned to take the CFA exams to help me with my transition. But their new rule required a valid passport, and it takes a while to get one, so I missed the deadline for last December's exam. That turned out to be a good thing because I just started networking, cold calling/emailing, applying to jobs, etc and I got my current job. If I had actually decided to take the CFA, I would have wasted all my time preparing for the exam instead of trying to get the job. Potential employers know if you are good or not after talking to you for 15 minutes. It has nothing to do with being able to memorize a set of formulas, some the last name of some economists and their theories, some oscure accounting differences between GAAP and IFRS, etc. For me it was the fact that I invest my own money and that I am able to explain my own investments very intelligently (aka it needs to be a lot better than what you see on /r/investing). If you know nothing about finance, studying the CFA material and then taking the exam is a good thing. You are going to be studying the material anyways if you are serious about a career change, so might as well take the exam afterwards and get a resume padder. I did end up taking the level 1 this month because my new employer paid for it. I don't think it adds any value once your foot is already in the door, especially since it takes 5 years of experience to get the charter (after that amount of time, it's all about job experience).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eab93318e1df76714209fac10fef2357",
"text": "At this point, completely useless. In the beginning it was useful to get my foot in the door. I still do the odd excel macro to automate some kind of analysis or valuation I do, but its like .. twice a year. So not very useful at this point. But I'd say that university taught me how to *learn* so its not as much about what i learned, but the process of learning how to learn effectively. Without that I wouldnt have been able to do the CFA, or learn anything else that I had to in order to get here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adf9e253173451846ae5fda97ba27fd4",
"text": "The best learning technique for me is not to dredge through books in order to gain a better understanding of finance. This is tedious and causes me to lose interest. I'm not sure of your tolerance for this type of learning. I tend to learn in small pieces. Something piques my interest and I go off reading about that particular topic. May I suggest some alternate methods:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f4587cce75eb5a3d4934057ee999966",
"text": "http://i.imgur.com/qvayKiB.jpg I bet many mathematicians would tell you that learning math makes you a better investor. And programmers would tell you that learning how to code makes you a better investor. And similarly for [biologists](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-20/hedge-fund-quant-posting-21-return-says-biology-is-secret-sauce) and sociologists and psychologists and [linguists](https://tepper.cmu.edu/-/media/files/tepper/extranet/academic%20programs/phd/dissertations/gao%20dissertation%20pdf.pdf) (PDF). Admittedly I have my own preconceived notions about [literary criticism](http://xkcd.com/451/), but I'd be tempted to believe the argument of an expert in any of those fields over a literary critic's.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48de6126e09b4d109fb35118ec96977d",
"text": "Become genuinely passionate about the subject and the knowledge/experience will guide you. If you're really desperate to get a position in finance ASAP, i would recommend a financials sales path. Sales is usually the most avoided path, as well as one of the most important skill sets to have. Most people don't even know that the top investment banking positions are sales, lol.....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d44a318b4b64ec24840c1cb7fb2a6ff0",
"text": "You really just need to learn about finance, trading and the markets. I know a chemical engineer that did an IB internship. He joined our universities Investments club and just learned everything from there. He never took a single business class",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6eae650f4eb3d246ae11dd68006ac241
|
Over the long term, why invest in bonds?
|
[
{
"docid": "e2174f138c71e1504c17ffbbe56eb991",
"text": "\"If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that \"\"the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds\"\". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd4931e1968953260f3368e895dd5e48",
"text": "Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b70a0767127af96e29b1b5b41b93e99",
"text": "\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "138baafde70878589e308c1b46610db7",
"text": "Many folks use bonds to diversify their portfolio since bonds rise and fall in value at different times and for different reasons than stocks. Bonds pay interest on a regular basis (usually monthly or quarterly) and so some people invest in bonds in order to match the interest payments to some regular expense they might have. The interest payment does not change (fixed income). For individual bonds, there is a maturity date at which you can expect to receive the face value of the bond (the issuer's creditworthiness is important here). You can make a little money on a bond by buying it when its value is lower than its face value and either selling later for a higher value, or waiting for it to mature. Often the minimum investment for a single bond is high, so if you don't have a large enough amount, you can still get the performance of bonds through a bond fund. These do not mature, so you don't have a guarantee of a return of your investment. However, they have access to more bonds than retail investors, so the funds can keep your money more fully invested. If you don't need the income, you can reinvest the dividends and have a little extra capital growth this way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "132ecb257ac4664dc0b3037828419962",
"text": "You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbdff4b74a172dce539bd323e632508",
"text": "\"The time value of money is very important in understanding this issue. Money today is worth more than money next year, two years from now, etc. It's a well understood economics concept, and well worth reading about if you have some, well, time. Not only is money literally worth more now than later due to inflation, but there is the simple fact that, assuming you have money for the purpose of doing something, being able to do that thing today is better than doing that same thing tomorrow. \"\"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush\"\" gets to this rather directly; having it now is better than probably having it later. Would you rather have a nice meal tonight, or eat beans and rice tonight and then have the same nice meal next year? That's why interest exists, in part: you're offered some money now, for more money later; or in the case of buying a bond, you're offered more money later for some money now. The fact that people have different discount rates for money later is why the loan market can exist: people with more money than they can use now have a lower discount for future money than people who really need money right now (to buy a house, to pay their rent, whatever). So when choosing to buy a bond, you look at the money you're going to get, both over the short term (the coupon rate) and the long term (the face value), and you consider whether $80 now is worth $100 in 20 years, plus $2 per year. For some people it is - for some people it isn't, and that's why the price is as it is ($80). Odds are if you have a few thousand USD, you're probably not going to be interested in this - or if you have a very long term outlook; there are better ways to make money over that long term. But, if you're a bank needing a secure investment that won't lose value, or a trust that needs high stability, you might be willing to take that deal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a594531713f25db64f1f7048814d8604",
"text": "A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db66be504a892bc3ea02c50fdb954cbc",
"text": "\"In the quoted passage, the bonds are \"\"risky\"\" because you CAN lose money. Money markets can be insured by the FDIC, and thus are without risk in many instances. In general, there are a few categories of risks that affect bonds. These include: The most obvious general risk with long-term bonds versus short-term bonds today is that rates are historically low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7755f8c87469a7bce12e478865efa8ef",
"text": "When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"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": "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": "2d1c127a3e9e3982f880d91565d518c2",
"text": "I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years. The concept is sound if executed correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e431c2f9d469ccc33da64dbcf88180e7",
"text": "Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "714c109a6f73a24b52331fe0ecc0db3a",
"text": "If you want to spend all of your money in the next few years, then a CD protects you from the risk of a bear market. however, if your time horizon is longer than 10 years, then the stock market is a better bet, since it is less effected by inflation risk. also, as you point out average stock returns are much higher, ignoring volatility. On the whole, CD's appeal to people who would otherwise save their money in cash. generally, it seems these people are simply afraid of stocks and bonds because those securities can lose nominal value as well as real value. I suspect this is largely because these people don't understand inflation, nor the historical long-term index fund performance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "159fd918e0c65f68e6529b8c7b2f5907",
"text": "I found a comparison of stock and bond returns. The relevant portion here is that bonds went up by 10% in 2007 and 20% in 2008 (32% compounded). Stocks were already recovering in 2009, going up almost 26%. You don't mention what you were hoping to get from your gold investment, but bonds gave a very good return for those two years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a16e38607c9d834e9d46ff63df423c5",
"text": "No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1780c956b6e79156a96d46a6b5e1ce97",
"text": "\"Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not \"\"safe\"\"; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce6a9019ce22a1ff13282f68d93ca6f4",
"text": "\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2631eae9633f063f2dc1e9802e506444",
"text": "If you look at it from the hedging perspective, if you're unsure you're going to need to hedge but want to lock in an option premium price if you do need to do so, I could see this making sense.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1828a8cd8fbe68542b960e73c354463f
|
What does “interest rates”, without any further context, generically refer to?
|
[
{
"docid": "e16b834629cbf3ea7dbfc65ce2a43ca4",
"text": "\"In the United States, if someone refers to the \"\"interest rate\"\", especially if heard on news or talk radio in particular, they are almost always referring to the federal funds rate, a rate set forth and maintained by the United States Federal Reserve (the \"\"fed\"\" for short). If the fed opts to raise or lower this rate, it subsequently effects all interest rates, whether by being directly connected in a chain of loans or by market demand through the efficiency of financial markets in the case of bond auctions. The FOMC meets eight times each year to determine the target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate effects all interest rates because it is the originating rate of interest on all loans in the chain of loans. Because of this significance as a benchmark for all interest rates, it is the rate most commonly referred to as \"\"interest rate\"\" when used alone. That is why other rates are specified by what they actually are; e.g., mortgage rates; 10 year & 30 year (for 10 year treasury and 30 year treasury bond yields respectively); savings rate, auto rate, credit card rate, CD rate—all rates of interest effected by the originating loan that is the federal funds rate. This is true in the United States but will vary for other countries. In general though, it will almost always refer to the originating rate for all loans in a given country, institution, etc. Note that bonds have yields that are based on market demand that is, in turn, based on the federal funds rate. It is because of the efficiency of financial markets that the demand, and thus the yields, are correlated to the federal funds rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f27a728efa05f14ce56512f50cc4767",
"text": "The generic representative of interest rates is the 10 year treasury bond rate. (USA). As an approximation most other interest rates do tend to move up and down with the treasury rate, but with more or less sensitivity. Another prominently discussed interest rate is the short term loan rate established by the Federal Reserve for loans it makes to banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b949e7c4d790bedfd8add9e42eca3b2",
"text": "Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b7f04d94c8e7840ef8cb467b3b6f302",
"text": "\"When \"\"people say\"\", each person is referring to whatever he/she is looking at. Interest rates tend to move roughly the same, but often there is a bias regarding long vs. short term. In the US right now, short term interest rates are very low but there is a lot of chatter saying they will rise in the future. The differential between long term rates and short term rates is high compared to historical norms, suggesting that the market believes this chatter. You can also look at the differences in rates between different quality levels. If the economy is improving, the difference in rate for lower rated debt vs. higher rated debt decreases as people think the chance of businesses failing is decreasing. Right now, any interest rate you look at is well below long term historical averages, so asserting that interest rates are low is quite safe.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fa34b85c96df77350bbe15dc4f87d3f",
"text": "It refers to the risk free rate of a particular country. Because all other rates are usually pegged to the risk free rate. In US,it is the 30 day treasury rate. In England, it is the LIBOR In Canada, it is the overnight rate at which banks lend money to each other. All of these come under the category of risk free rate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "55a4f389f97a24cc60821597a105d24a",
"text": "In the EU, you might be looking for Directive 2000/35/EC (Late Payment Directive). There was a statutory rate, 7% above the European Central Bank main rate. However, this Directive was recently repealed by Directive 2011/7/EU, which sets the statutory rate at ECB + 8%. (Under EU regulations, Directives must be turned into laws by national governments, which often takes several months. So in some EU countries the local laws may still reflect the old Directive. Also, the UK doesn't participate in the Euro, and doesn't follow the ECB rate)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc563b09d7845ba930dae4a11756cd83",
"text": "> if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, You cannot really believe this. There is no sector more artificial than banking, and under the current regime there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans. Rates have been artificially depressed across the spectrum using every available manipulation, and we are experiencing a coordinated money-printing/government bailout operation on a global scale. To say that rates anywhere have any relation to the real cost and/or demand for capital is absurd.",
"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": "e25e337420c113aef3d69ee5b4815c3f",
"text": "Interest rates are always given annually, to make them comparable. If you prefer to calculate the rate or the total interest for the complete time, like 10 years or 15 years or 30 years, it is simple math, and it tells you the total you will pay, but it is not helpful for picking the better or even the right offer for your situation. Compare it to your car's gas mileage- what sense does it make to provide the information that a car will use 5000 gallons of gas over its lifetime? Is that better than a car that uses 6000 gallons (but may live 2 years longer?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aab39fc5fd7ac4fe676e73fe70b167da",
"text": "These are yields for the government bonds. EuroZone interest rates are much lower (10 times lower, in fact) than the UK (GBP zone) interest rates. The rates are set by the central banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd585fa26eeb5e188fb1aad4503d3bda",
"text": "Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%). Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher. Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high. We're currently at a three-year low. Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up. Eventually. Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall. It hasn't happened yet though. In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008). The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61cb9c5e05a58e02ffa8d0042bbf0613",
"text": "All unsubstantiated opinions. >there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what? Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services? Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.",
"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": "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": "a3b5afd328987c700c1d17b985294334",
"text": "You'd likely be most familiar with them with respect to options and futures on commodities but they're used for credit/interest as well. The intrinsic value of an option is *derived* from the spread between call/put price and strike price; the value of the contract I've paid for or sold is derived from the current market value of the underlying asset, be it rice, platinum, or the Swedish kroner",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b605a216befe7244a88edea45dbd0315",
"text": "\"Let's talk interest rates on your junk bonds. Even after all that the US has been through (and is still going through), the United States dollar is widely regarded as one of the safest safe havens for your money. As such it serves as a de facto baseline against which all other investments can be measured, the bar everyone has to pass: if you could earn 4% on a 5-year US Treasury bond, or earn 4% on anything else over the next 5 years, you pick the Treasury bond. In many ways this means that the interest rate on a Treasury bond is the closest single measure we have to the price of money all by itself. If someone is loaning you money, they could be loaning it to the Treasury instead; they are losing out by making this loan to you, and must charge you at least this rate just to break even. But most people/governments/countries aren't as credit-worthy as the US Treasury. A few are (the US treasury isn't magical, after all, just really good at what it does), but generally they are not. There is a possibility when loaning money to these entities that you will not get your money back. That is risk. All entities have some risk (even the US treasury!), and some have more than others; \"\"junk bonds\"\" have a somewhat elevated level of this risk. Now, you don't just take a risk on for free (unless you're being charitable or something, but I hope you can find better beneficiaries of charity than the average junk bond). You need to be compensated for that risk. Lenders will demand compensation commensurate with that risk - or they will just walk away without making any loans or buying any bonds because it's not worth it. The difference between the interest rate on a US Treasury bond and the interest rate on another bond, such as a junk bond, is the risk premium - the cost of carrying that risk. Therefore you can see that the interest rate on a junk bond is the price of money plus the risk premium. Now, the Federal Reserve adjusts the price of money from time to time, by buying and selling US Treasury bonds until the price is something they like. This means that one component of interest rate on a junk bond is the interest rate on the US Treasury bond, and it is effectively controlled by the Federal Reserve (through that layer of indirection). The other component of the interest rate on a junk bond is the risk premium. It's not generally possible to know in advance whether or not some company will actually default. People have to guess, and decide how comfortable they are taking that risk. This means that risk is more expensive (and interest rates are higher) when they think the companies in question are going through some hard times, and risk will also be more expensive when people decide that they can't take as many risks (perhaps they've already lost some money and need to take additional steps to protect the rest). It's definitely very hard for an individual to decide what the risk on a particular bond is. The good news is that you generally don't have to. There are a bunch of rich jerks, hedge funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and other investment entities out there who spend all day looking at things like bonds, trying to estimate the risk. Their willingness to exploit minuscule differences between the interest rate on a bond and the real risk means that the average bond on the market will be fairly priced, according to what all those people think. Plenty of them can still be wrong, mind you (cf. mortgage-backed securities) but in the general case the price of any security reflects all the information everyone in the world has on it on average, so if you're wrong you're in good company. When you buy a nice diversified bond fund, you have access to a bunch of bonds at a pretty-standard price. So that's interest rates for you. But you asked about prices. As it turns out, they're the same thing! - just expressed slightly differently. One way or another a bond is essentially meant to be a stream of payments worth a certain amount in the end - this is why you'll hear them referred to sometimes as a \"\"fixed-income security\"\". The interest rate is essentially the difference between the price you pay now, and the value you receive later, except expressed as a rate. Technically, you could structure the bonds differently (e.g. does the bond pay little bits of interest as you go along, or just pay one big lump sum in the end?) but you can use Math to convert between these two situations, and figure out how much money is worth which when, so it doesn't really matter. Anyway. This means that rising interest rates means lower bond prices on bonds you already own (and falling interest rates means higher bond prices). So if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates, the face value of your bond funds will fall. Also, if people think that the companies issuing the bonds are too risky, the face value of those bonds will also fall. (You were probably expecting the latter effect, though.) Mind you, you will still get the same amount of future money out of them as you would otherwise: that's why they're fixed-income securities. However, a higher interest rate means \"\"I can get more money in the future for less money now\"\", and so people will be willing to pay you less for your bond in the present. This is known as interest rate risk. It is higher on longer term bonds, because those have more time to earn interest.\"",
"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": "955841b84a2ceb0d770b7292c6779ba2",
"text": "The prime rate is the interest rate banks use amongst themselves to lend money to each other only. It is used as the basis (sometimes) for what interest rate banks charge you. The prime rate is based loosely on the Fed rate. There is a committee that meets regularly to set this and other industry interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate I am not 100% positive the following is totally accurate The banks keep our deposits and pay us interest for doing so. They are paying us interest because they take yours, mine and everybody elses deposits as a large lump sum and invest that money. Sometimes as business loans, sometimes as mortgages and sometimes as credit card. The banks have a book of business that will be EXACTLY how much credit they have extended to everybody. But they do not keep that amount of cash in the vaults, only some smaller percentage of that large amount. When I use my credit card and they need to transfer money to amazon.com, if they don't happen to have enough cash that day, they will just borrow from another bank that does, and the interest rate they pay to do so is the prime rate. Since they are paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the debt I charged because they told me my credit was worth so much (...???...) they charge me a little bit more than that. Hence your credit card or mortgage's APR being based on the prime rate. I THINK that is what they do If I am wrong leave a comment and I will update, or the mods can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec7d7e5c5674d90ed20fb432879d9ef9",
"text": "That's just factually incorrect. Outright lying aside, the previously mentioned contraction is after after a 2.1% Q4 and clocked in just .2% below last year's national average (a five year low). Regardless of that tiny bit of logic, the Fed has forecast a 2.9% Q2. Full employment and highest consumer confidence in years are driving it. Even worse case in that article, the forecasts are above 2.5% for the next quarter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cd6fe269b21bef280e212439f3a5ae5",
"text": "The way I handle clothing purchases, is I save a little bit with each paycheck but don't commit to spending each month. I wait until I find the exact item I need or know I will need in the near future. I have a list of things to look for so I don't get off track and blow my budget. And each time I consider hitting Starbucks or buying a random something at Target, I think which is a better investment - a great pair of pants that will work for me for a decade, or a latte? Thank you for linking to me. Your question is one many people have. I feel that clothing should be purchased slowly, with care. If you do it this you will buy items that don't need to be replaced every two years, and will maintain style and quality longer. :)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b8beb97ea771eafbf6ead3c3f4d75a02
|
How can I get free or discounted checks for my bank account?
|
[
{
"docid": "edeccec132105acaf4d53566108ccb90",
"text": "There is no reason you must buy the bank's printed check. There are many places both physical stores and on line the offer check printing. From what I've seen, the requirement is the use of a magnetic ink the bank's equipment can properly scan. I may not even be correct there if they've all gone fully optical. The checks you buy on line are a fraction of the cost the bank would charge you. Edit - On searching, I find VistaPrint offers free checks. I've not ordered checks from them, but I suspect free orders require you pay shipping. I've used VistaPrint for business cards, promotional items, and holiday cards. I can say, I've been pleased with their quality. Update - The free checks from VistaPrint are no longer available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17d0dd730c0065910517603869862e3b",
"text": "\"Although not required, #2 would work best if you used magnetic ink... That is an extra cost which you may or may not want to pay for. You can often get a free checking account and a free set of checks if you can meet the minimum requirements. This often means a higher average daily balance, direct deposit, or some combination of multiple requirements. The bank is taking a risk that a client meeting those minimum requirements while likely earn the bank more in fees and services than what they give out for \"\"free\"\" such as the account and checks. My wife and I opened a Wells Fargo checking account two years ago. Back then, we were able to open the account for free along with a free set of 250 checks. I think the requirement now requires $7,500 average daily balance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df4baaa5568774bea88b5aba32f7b7d7",
"text": "First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4e67a63703b2ce3423d76eebfd689f7b",
"text": "The bottom line is something in your story is not adding up. You had two checks one that is voided, and one that is not. Lets say they are both written against your account for $100. Lets also assume that have exactly $100 in your account. You give the Liquor Store the voided one, they give you $100, but when they attempt to cash the check at their bank they are denied and assessed a $20 fee. You spend the $100 they gave you; however, you still should have $100 in your account as the check was not cashed. You want to make things right with the liquor store. You should be able to withdraw the $100 you still have in the bank and give them that much. While they will still be out the $20 fee, that should make them feel much better about you as a customer. Tell them when you will be paid and that you will give them the $20 on that date. Then do so. The only way this problem is not solvable is that you spent the $100 that was left in the bank. In that case, the Liquor store is correct you stole the money. More accurately you spent money that wasn't yours.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a96543e87a7d692090fe7441ce7b12c7",
"text": "I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f4a09fd47702b34fd698aa96b6fdb0",
"text": "\"You can spend the money quite quickly. The problem is that if there is something wrong with the check, the bank will ask you for the money back. If the check is from a trusted source (a trusted friend, a business with good reputation etc.) that's fine. If the money is from an untrusted source, make sure that having to pay back the money doesn't get you into trouble. Since most people are honest, this is fine for a small amount, but if it's more than you can afford to pay back, don't spend it. A simple scam is that people send you checks, \"\"by mistake\"\" the check is for the wrong amount, say $910 instead of $190, and they ask you to send the difference back. So you put $910 into your account, send them $720, and six weeks later your bank asks for their $910 back. If someone pays you too much on a check and asks you to pay them the difference, you know it is a scam.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aa022f401826c82028f3335f5cd8c4d",
"text": "I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d90fea8919eaee4e7a4053d3661257cb",
"text": "You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c2287b7bbb82a213d5afb5d8926b4fd",
"text": "You could write a personal check after the final price has been set and you're ready to purchase. Another option would be to get the final price - then walk over to your bank and get a cashier's check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0df4c9f2930e72408863d2d65f19c3d4",
"text": "A routing number and account number are on the bottom of every check. If anybody who ever handled your checks or even saw your checks could just withdraw as much money as they wanted, the whole banking system would need to be reworked. In short, just having that info is not enough. Not legally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed19a528140148b687404d864b48cb36",
"text": "\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3849e3003518435903391eaf972f235",
"text": "The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail. My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa1f2198f2b2841062db955e8b4bbd2",
"text": "When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4be9577a4007b8e6fa6001cd6834502",
"text": "This question was asked three years ago, but now that it's 2017 there is actually a relatively easy, cheap and fast solution to at least the first half of your question. To cash the check: I've done this a half dozen times while abroad (from the US) without any problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22d7742a2b993821a7cebeef9029d984",
"text": "Additionally, it used to be the case that savings accounts would have a noticeably higher interest than checking accounts (if the checking account paid any at all). So you would attempt to maximize your cash working for you by putting as much as you could into the savings account and then only transferring out what you needed to cover bills, etc into the checking account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1144cfaa87b538d2965dbacc3eff749b",
"text": "No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "302019998d8505c3d4064045d88f4dcc",
"text": "TD Bank (Northeast US) has free change counting machines at its branches. You don't have to have an account to use them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fb9aa8d4e4bb2f455a40c424889d31e",
"text": "Given you mention a check clearing, in addition to debit card holds as JoeTaxpayer notes, you may also have funds that are on hold for that reason. While the bank may have stated it would be a one day hold, some banks may mean business days (Monday-Friday), and so it will become available on Monday. This is because checks are not always instantly withdrawn from the other account (although this is becoming much more common post-electronic check reform), so the bank wants to make sure it actually is getting the money from the check; after all, if the check you deposited bounces, the bank doesn't want to end up footing the bill. The bank allows you some portion up front, largely as a customer service; the amount varies from bank to bank, but it's generally a small amount they don't mind risking. $200 is a pretty good amount, actually; back when I was just out of college and frequently spending the last $50 in my account, the pre-clearance amount was usually $50. If the bank does this to you regularly and you feel that it is unfair in how long it holds checks, you might consider shopping around; different banks have different hold policies, or might allow you a larger amount up front. In particular, online banks tend to have more favorable terms this way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5bdb48c2679a5d845e53c4394beac3a7
|
Does a failed chargeback affect my credit score?
|
[
{
"docid": "c8be4f69d437e28f0d7e164653cab264",
"text": "If this chargeback failed then would it negatively affect my credit score? A credit score is a measure of how dependable of a borrower you are. Requesting a refund for not receiving goods not delivered as promised, whether it is successful or it fails, should not impact your credit score since it has no implications on the likelihood that you will pay back debts. The last time I used that gym was the 13th January 2017, and I rejoined on the 20th December, so I have used it for less than a month. Therefore I do not think I should have to pay for two months Keep in mind that you purchased a membership to the gym. Whether or not you actually use the gym you are liable to pay for every month that you retain the membership. Although it probably won't hurt to try to get a refund for the period where you didn't take advantage of your gym membership, you weren't actually charged for a service that you never received (like in the last case where they charged you after you cancelled your membership).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d3a8e900cecf7ac3996efc9e605a862",
"text": "\"I think your confusion comes from the negative impact when a creditor writes off your bad credit and ceases attempting to collect it. \"\"Chargebacks\"\" as you call them are an attempt to undo fraudulent charges on your card, whether from stolen credit card info or from a merchant who is using shady business practices. For what it's worth, if you joined on December 20, January 20 seems like a reasonable date for the next billing cycle, with the December 31 date reflecting the fact that their system couldn't automatically bill you the day you joined. I also think it's reasonable for you to ask them to refund the bill for the second month if you do not plan to use their gym further. So the dispute seems like a reasonable one on both sides. Good luck.\"",
"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": "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": "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": "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": "f780ede624cc558237341e4335e2dd31",
"text": "The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full. The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts. The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit. That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer. They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall. Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor. However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt. For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative. If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative. If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down. Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "004045a3f04f04b4337bbbe4ccc90771",
"text": "Check out /r/personalfinance for more detailed advice. Not sure your question. Yes, cancelling it will cause it to disappear from your credit report. Apply for your own card right now (a free rewards one ideally) if your credit it good enough and you have a job. Never pay interest and keep that card and your credit will naturally head to 720+ with no negative marks over time.",
"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": "18b7559a6edda684caf66c1f0c3a4e40",
"text": "\"Your bank will undoubtedly charge you a fee for the \"\"chargeback\"\" and so while you will get your money back faster, you will likely end up with less than you would if you were not so impatient and just waited a few days for the refund to show up. I suppose it depends on whether you consider this a downside or not.\"",
"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": "487342b59ecd1739ead28cebd4f8eefb",
"text": "Credit scores are designed to reflect your ability to make payments on time. As long as you're not closing your old credit card account, you will only see a minimal impact on your score. See estimated credit score breakdowns below:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bf8916a07958f21f05d6bdb91a0000f",
"text": "\"First, a note of my personal experience: up until a year ago, my credit lines were composed exclusively of credit cards with perfect payment histories, and my credit score is fine. If you mean that credit cards have no impact on a person's credit score until they miss a payment, that is certainly not correct. FICO's website identifies \"\"payment history\"\" as 35% of your FICO score: 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. ... Credit payment history on many types of accounts Account types considered for payment history include: ... Details on late or missed payments (\"\"delinquencies\"\") and public record and collection items FICO® Scores consider: How many accounts show no late payment A good track record on most of your credit accounts will increase your FICO® Scores. Clearly, from the last item alone, we see that credit lines (a category which includes credit cards) with no late payments is a factor in computing your FICO score, and certainly other credit bureaus behave similarly. Possibly the banker was trying to explain some other point, like \"\"If you're careful not to spend more on your card than you have in the bank, you can functionally treat your credit card as a debit line,\"\" but did so in a confusing way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52b93ea21402f1d2f3d73a6d680c120c",
"text": "I have already talked to them over the phone and they insist they haven't charged me yet, and I will not be charged. When I informed them I had in fact been charged they agreed it would be reversed. So I have tried to resolve the issue and I don't have any confidence they will reverse the charge as it has not been done yet. They are difficult to communicate which makes the whole process more difficult. Your best next step is to call the credit card company and share this story. I believe the likely result is that the credit card company will initiate a charge back. My question is, is this a valid reason to file a chargeback on my credit card? Yes. If you attempted to work it out with the vendor and it is not working out, this is an appropriate time to initiate a charge back.",
"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": "2a0c857f666db616db5e97f746fa4ffd",
"text": "This will have no effect on your credit score. Even though your credit card account number is changing, it is still the same account, so your history of payments and age of accounts will remain unchanged.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9be848b4054ffe1f5af563fcd6422f6",
"text": "\"First of all, whatever you do, DON'T PAY! Credit reporting agencies operate on aged records, and paying it now will most certainly not improve your score. For example, let's say that you had an unpaid debt that was reported as a \"\"charge-off\"\" to the credit bureaus. After, say, six months, the negative effect on your score is reduced. It is reduced even further after a year or two, and after two years, the negative effect on your score is negligible. Now, say you were to pay the debt after the two years. This would \"\"refresh\"\" the record, and show as a \"\"paid charge-off\"\". Sure, now it shows as paid, but it also shows the date of the record as being today, which increases the effect on your credit drastically. In other words, you would have just shot yourself in the foot, big-time. As others have noted, the best option is to dispute the item. If, for some reason, it isn't removed, you are allowed to submit an annotation to the item, explaining your side of the story. Anyone pulling your credit record would see this note, which can help you in some instances. In any case, these scam artists don't deserve your money. Finally, you should check who is the local ombusdman, and report this agent to them. She could lose her license for such a practice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7158c719aa4183cc9db62532ce39fdb5",
"text": "It is not delayed and if it didn't show yet - will not show on that agency's credit report. However, you may find it on another agency's report. There are three major agencies, and creditors don't always check all of them (each inquiry costs them money).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b4edf4f1ef798ebd525a68201cb1b358
|
Should I file a change of address with the IRS?
|
[
{
"docid": "6a52d1b7bf78322f735fdfe93ad1477d",
"text": "The most important thing to do when moving is to change your address with the post office. This will forward most mail for a year, and even automatically send change of address notices to many businesses that send mail to you. If you do this, and the IRS needs to send you something over the next year, you'll get it. The IRS does have a procedure for changing your address, and you would want to do this if you are expecting something from the IRS and are unable to do a change of address with the post office for some reason. But if you do forward your mail and you aren't expecting a refund check, I don't think it is necessary. The IRS will get your new address when you file your return next year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eccc86c65137baf66ef701e51c2ed47f",
"text": "You put your Michigan address. The incorporation address is of no concern for the IRS, they couldn't care less where you're incorporated - it has no effect on your tax liability. The address is used when audited, and the IRS expects you to give the address where the records are (i.e.: where the business, aka you, is physically located).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9574f0e2fb0fbf836e189b29db9332cd",
"text": "\"If the IRS changes your return in any way (including math errors) - they send a letter explaining the change and the reasons for it. You should read that letter, it will answer your question (Usually its a CP12 notice). If you didn't receive it - you can call them and ask to resend it (they're unlikely to answer over the phone, but you can try asking). I'm confused by your using the word \"\"estimate\"\". Your tax return is not supposed to be estimate, it supposed to be precise. Why are you considering your tax return \"\"estimate\"\"? If your filed tax return shows refund of $X and you received $X+$180 - then as I said, a letter of explanation from the IRS is due. If you don't know what the refund amount on your return is and you're trying to \"\"estimate\"\" it now - you better get a copy of that return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9dca32b8177f2bddd8208506c0d1b84",
"text": "You proceed with a proper legal advice. You should not ignore IRS letters. You should have taken your chances in trying to reach a compromise with them, but that ship has likely sailed already. You might want to consider bankruptcy. Ask your parents for a couple of hundreds of dollars to pay for a legal consultation with a lawyer and a CPA and proceed from there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97336ce35e043e2b0283be57f1a75128",
"text": "In how much trouble can I get exactly if the IRS finds out? I understand that there's a 6 year statute of limitations on criminal charges and no limitation at all on fraud. Is this considered fraud? I'm assuming not. There's no statute of limitations for fraud (which is a criminal charge). The statute of limitations is for failure to report income which is not fraud. In your case, since you willingly decided to not report it knowingly that you should, it can most definitely account for fraud, so I wouldn't count on statute of limitations in this case. I should amend my taxes for those years That would be the easiest way to go. would the IRS go all the way and file criminal charges considering the amount of money I owe They have the legal right to, and if you do get caught - likely they will. Easy money for them, since you obviously have income and can pay all the fines and penalties. Practically speaking, what's the worst case scenario? Theoretically - can be jail as well. Being charged in a criminal court, even if the eventual punishment is just a penalty, is a punishment of its own. You'll have troubles finding jobs, passing security checks, getting loans approved, etc. For $3200, when you're in 25% bracket as an individual for years, I'd say not worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1513d548321287b8b1ab7d6ac433981",
"text": "\"Buried on the IRS web site is the \"\"Fillable Forms Error Search Tool\"\". Rather than including an explanation of errors in the rejection email itself, you're expected to copy and paste the error email into this form, which gives more details about what's wrong. (Don't blame me; I didn't design it.) If I copy your error message in, here's the response I get: There is an error with the “primary taxpayer’s Date of Birth” in Step 2 Section 4. The date of birth that was entered does not match IRS records. Make sure you enter the correct birth date, in the correct format, in the correct space. Scroll down, and enter the current date (“Today’s date”). Today’s date is the day you intend to e-file the return again. Also, if you are making an electronic payment you must re-date that section. E-File your return. You say that you've already checked your birthday, so I don't know as this is particularly helpful. If you're confident that it's correct and in the right place, I think your next step needs to be contacting the IRS directly. They have a link at the bottom of the error lookup response on how to contact them specifically about their solution not working, or you could try contacting your local IRS office or giving them a call.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9760eb01c9865d9e976ff2bb5d0ca757",
"text": "I'm not an attorney, nor am I a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you talk to these two types of professionals. From my limited knowledge, without proper documentation/organization, I can't see how the IRS/State will not consider this as a rent payment. The mortgage responsibility is of the person signing the mortgage contract, and you're under no obligation to pay that person anything. Had you not lived at the property, you might argue that it was a gift (although I'm not sure if it would stand), but since you do live in the property - it is quite obviously a rent payment. Putting your name on the deed may mitigate this slightly but I'm not sure how much - since you're still not obligated to pay the mortgage. However this is probably moot since it is unlikely for a bank to give a mortgage on a property to person A when it is also owned by a person B, without that person B being side to the mortgage contract.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a11834365a486a06411dce06c9b09bb",
"text": "\"The wire is probably the quick way to go. There may be a lower cost method through an international bank like Citi or HSBC. If you are a US resident or have a \"\"substantial presence\"\" in the United States, the IRS may be interested in the origins of your money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7e3d7a58663bf7892905e74ddb6346a",
"text": "\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5585aaa5c498c78f143339441300c8fa",
"text": "Why not just leave it as is and register as foreign entity in New Mexico? You won't avoid the gross receipts tax, but other than that - everything stays as is. Unless Illinois has some taxes that you would otherwise not pay - just leave it there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02c78bcfa77c8f9dce19cef17e2a50db",
"text": "It will not affect your tax bracket so long as he files his taxes. It will not affect your credit negatively so long as the joint account takes out no debts. If it does take out debts, then someone would need to pay them to avoid negative credit. Ideally debts should take signatures from both of you (ask the bank). The IRS will not automatically assume that the only reason that two people might have a joint account is illegal activities. If he withdraws money from the account in such a way to cause an overdraft, you might be responsible for it. However, it sounds like he isn't supposed to be withdrawing money from that account. So that's a potential problem but not a guaranteed problem. Make sure that you have the power to close the account without him (so if you break up later, you can take your name off unilaterally). Realize that you might have to pay a little to close the account if he overdraws it. If possible, have the bank refuse overdrafts. Consider a savings account rather than a checking account. The rules may better fit what you want to do. In particular, if you are limited to transfers, that's safer than checks. Schedule a time to talk to someone at the bank about the account. Ask them to leave plenty of time because you have questions. Explain what you want and let them tell you how to structure the account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79702816dfe3554f3eae54d04ca87ae3",
"text": "I suggest you talk to a New York-licensed tax adviser (EA or NY-licensed CPA). New York is very aggressive when it comes to residency determination, and given your facts and circumstances you may end up being considered NY resident despite relocating to Florida. If you maintain a studio in NY, I'd say 99% chance is that you remain NY resident for the whole year (but verify with a professional).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "614098cccc7c2833b8fc3c2452d2e12c",
"text": "\"Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, \"\"if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes\"\". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is \"\"pay off my campaign contributors\"\", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US, by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e725b58b1b28fc1dfc5ca7b43ed7c8f",
"text": "\"Did it show just your address, or was your name on it as well? You didn't share how long you've lived at the address either, so it makes me wonder whether a former tenant is the one who filed that paperwork. It's also possible that someone used your address when making a filing. Whether that was deliberate or accidental is hard to discern, as is their intent if it was intentional. It could be accidental -- someone picked \"\"CA\"\" for California when they meant to pick \"\"CO\"\" for Colorado or \"\"CT\"\" for Connecticut...These things do happen. It can't make you feel any better about the situation though. You should be able to go online to the California Secretary of State's website (here) and look up everything filed by the LLC with the state. That will show who the founders were and everything else that is a matter of public record on the LLC. At the very least, you can obtain the registered agent's name and address for the LLC, which you can then use to contact them and ask why your address is listed as the LLC's business address. Once you have that info, you can then contact the Secretary of State and tell them it isn't you so they can do whatever is necessary to correct this. This doesn't sound like a difficult matter to clear up, but it's important to do your homework first and gather as much information as you can before you call the state. Answering \"\"I don't know\"\" won't get you very far with them compared to having the best answers you can about where the mistake started. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49beb5701fd58d0437b4ff5bea88d312",
"text": "I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4df5bb9fc859ff7e608102a75e71a935",
"text": "\"If you are a telecommuter and in good terms with your employer, then all you need is contact your employer and explain your situation. Ask them for a short letter that indicates: \"\"1. they require you to work from a privately rented office (or from a home office for those who prefer working from home), 2. this is one of the terms of your employment, and, 3. they will not reimburse you for this expense.\"\" With this letter in your hand, you satisify both the \"\"convenience of employer\"\" test AND the deduction of the rent for your private office as a unreimbursed employee expense. The IRS cannot expect your employer to open an office branch in your city just for your sake, nor can they expect you to commute to your employer's city for work, which is an impossiblity considering the distance. Additionally, the IRS cannot \"\"force\"\" telecommuters to work from home. The key is to get a letter from your employer. You'd be surprised how easily they are willing to write such letter for you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
28c7b6c317811d118df97404ed186d2b
|
What evidence or research suggests that mid- or small-capitalization stocks should perform better than large caps?
|
[
{
"docid": "bf6022bc93687e36f52a30b212aea8d4",
"text": "I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world. Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap stocks should beat large ones over the very long term if only for the fact that large companies can't maintain that level of growth indefinitely. A non-tech example - Coke has a 174B market cap with 46B in annual sales. A small beverage company can have $10M in sales, and grow those sales 20-25%/year for 2 decades before hitting even $1B in sales. When you have zero percent of the pie, it's possible to grow your business at a fast pace those first years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d10eb268437ac3cb2c275b49b796db2d",
"text": "From Dimson, Elroy, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton. Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2002: Disappointingly, the small firm effect has not proved the road to great riches since soon after its discovery, the US size premium went into reverse. This was repeated in the United Kingdom and virtually all other markets around the world. Despite their disappointing performance in recent years, the very long-run record of small-caps remains one of outperformance in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, mid- and small-size companies are still an important asset class. Their differential performance over long periods of history shows that there is useful scope for investors to reduce risk by diversifying across the “large” and the “small” capitalization sectors of the market. Furthermore, given the pervasiveness of the size effect across the entire size spectrum, it is important to all investors since the size tilt of any portfolio will strongly influence its short- and long-run performance. This holds true whether there is a size premium or a size discount. The size effect has certainly proved persistent and robust. What is at issue is whether we should continue to expect a size premium over the longer haul. And accompanying charts: And one chart from BlackRock:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3221ea586106f111e68b463d6aeb1d53",
"text": "Efficient Frontier has an article from years ago about the small-cap and value premiums out there that would be worth noting here using the Fama and French data. Eugene Fama and Kenneth French (F/F) have shown that one can explain almost all of the returns of equity portfolios based on only three factors: market exposure, market capitalization (size), and price-to-book (value). Wikipedia link to the factor model which was the result of the F/F research.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "22b1ea9120af491bb5ea89dbba820eb4",
"text": "\"Thanks for pointing out [the study](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1748851). It's a slightly different cause than what I was describing when I posted this. Specifically, they show an effect not when the names get confused, but rather when the name similarity simply brings more attention to the stock. I was surprised nobody mentioned that in response to my post. But also interesting is that they had to control for simple confusion between stock symbols, which implies that ticker confusion has a known effect. So I dug into research on that and quickly found [this study](http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/EFMA%20ANNUAL%20MEETINGS/2010-Aarhus/EFMA2010_0161_fullpaper.pdf) found \"\"a high positive correlation between returns on two matching stocks with similar ticker symbols\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc",
"text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7bdf878050a0ce633c13691f39664af",
"text": "Volume and prices are affected together by how folks feel about the stock; there is no direct relationship between them. There are no simple analysis techniques that work. Some would argue strongly that there are few complex analysis techniques that work either, and that for anyone but full-time professionals. And there isn't clear evidence that the full-time professionals do sufficiently better than index funds to justify their fees. For most folks, the best bet is to diversify, using low-overhead index funds, and simply ride with the market rather than trying to beat it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62f08eaa49bccd9597553e00a23f7716",
"text": "\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e152f6b5bba8fdb5ea92ad24f628b2ec",
"text": "\"To answer your question directly.. you can investigate by using google or other means to look up research done in this area. There's been a bunch of it Here's an example of search terms that returns a wealth of information. effect+of+periodic+rebalancing+on+portfolio+return I'd especially look for stuff that appears to be academic papers etc, and then raid the 'references' section of those. Look for stuff published in industry journals such as \"\"Journal of Portfolio Management\"\" as an example. If you want to try out different models yourself and see what works and what doesn't, this Monte Carlo Simulator might be something you would find useful The basic theory for those that don't know is that various parts of a larger market do not usually move in perfect lockstep, but go through cycles.. one year tech might be hot, the next year it's healthcare. Or for an international portfolio, one year korea might be doing fantastic only to slow down and have another country perform better the next year. So the idea of re-balancing is that since these things tend to be cyclic, you can get a higher return if you sell part of a slice that is doing well (e.g. sell at the high) and invest it in one that is not (buy at the low) Because you do this based on some criteria, it helps circumvent the human tendency to 'hold on to a winner too long' (how many times have you heard someone say 'but it's doing so well, why do I want to sell now\"\"? presuming trends will continue and they will 'lose out' on future gains, only to miss the peak and ride the thing down back into mediocrity.) Depending on the volatility of the specific market, and the various slices, using re balancing can get you a pretty reasonable 'lift' above the market average, for relatively low risk. generally the more volatile the market, (such as say an emerging markets portfolio) the more opportunity for lift. I looked into this myself a number of years back, the concensus I came was that the most effective method was to rebalance based on 'need' rather than time. Need is defined as one or more of the 'slices' in your portfolio being more than 8% above or below the average. So you use that as the trigger. How you rebalance depends to some degree on if the portfolio is taxable or not. If in a tax deferred account, you can simply sell off whatever is above baseline and use it to buy up the stuff that is below. If you are subject to taxes and don't want to trigger any short term gains, then you may have to be more careful in terms of what you sell. Alternatively if you are adding funds to the portfolio, you can alter how your distribute the new money coming into the portfolio in order to bring up whatever is below the baseline (which takes a bit more time, but incurs no tax hit) The other question is how will you slice a given market? by company size? by 'sectors' such as tech/finance/industrial/healthcare, by geographic regions?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aa8f9bc9b2fedb0eef66df8b2eea64f",
"text": "Smaller markets can actually be more volatile so it's not a good idea to lower Graham's criteria for them. The only real adjustment possible is inflation adjustment. $100 million in 1973 United States works out to $500 million today based on the difference in CPI/Inflation from 1973. This number will be different for other markets where the rate of inflation since 1973 has been different. So the real question to ask is - what is to $100 million in the United States in 1973 worth today in your market? Source: http://www.serenitystocks.com/how-build-complete-benjamin-graham-portfolio",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3834023eee46345c1a76dc2fc03ec2f",
"text": "Here is one the links for Goldmansachs. Not to state the obvious, but most of their research is only available to their clients. http://www.goldmansachs.com/research/equity_ratings.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f619457d2ac508e86957b06260510702",
"text": "\"This is a really interesting question and something a lot of work is being done to understand. I'm going to look at the closely related question \"\"Do non market-cap etf weighting methods consistently outperform once you take into account their investment biases?\"\" Let's use revenue weighting as a reason why investment biases are so important. In revenue weighting, you would own almost no fast-growing tech companies as they generally have little revenue. This sounds great if we are talking about say Pets.com in the late 90s but you also would miss most of the rise of Google. To believe in these ETFs consistently outperform (adjusted for risk) you would have to have a strong reason to believe that earnings, sales, or dividends are a better predictor of company value than market value. Market analysts include the above three metrics and many more when pricing stocks so out-performance using only one of the above metrics seems unlikely. There is one caveat to this and that is value and small cap stocks have been shown to give slightly better risk-adjusted returns in the very long run (see Fama/French) and many of these alternative weighting methods will have a value or small cap bias. First, it is unclear if this out-performance will continue now that it is more widely known. Second, even if you believe this will continue you can more easily and cheaply get this bias though value/small-cap etfs than these weighting schemes. In the end, the only thing that is perfectly clear is that higher fee investments will generally under-perform.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a90095b3459dd36af8cddddb5c90d453",
"text": "You're not seeing the forest for the trees. Proper capital allocation takes diligent research from a community in choosing the best prospects. That community then supports LONG-TERM investment in that company. This is how proper companies are fostered; proper research is done; technologies advance, societies develop. Long-term investment leads to proper capital allocation. Please do tell me how short-term investment has any value in proper capital allocation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22a624586462392a84b59b2656031d90",
"text": "Why would it not make more sense to invest in a handful of these heavyweights instead of also having to carry the weight of the other 450 (some of which are mostly just baggage)? First, a cap-weighted index fund will invest more heavily in larger cap companies, so the 'baggage' you speak of does take up a smaller percentage of the portfolio's value (not that cap always equates to better performance). There are also equal-weighted index funds where each company in the index is given equal weight in the portfolio. If you could accurately pick winners and losers, then of course you could beat index funds, but on average they've performed well enough that there's little incentive for the average investor to look elsewhere. A handful of stocks opens you up to more risk, an Enron in your handful would be pretty devastating if it comprised a large percentage of your portfolio. Additionally, since you pay a fee on each transaction ($5 in your example), you have to out-perform a low-fee index fund significantly, or be investing a very large amount of money to come out ahead. You get diversification and low-fees with an index fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa196599aea1fbefd2765f38b644ff1f",
"text": "\"This is a good question and my answer below, being the first rationale that crossed my mind, is far from fleshed-out. It's just a reply based on many books on the historical cycles of markets and it's something I've discussed at work (I work in finance). Historically we can observe that periods of financial \"\"booms\"\" entailing high valuations of public equities tend to lead to lower returns. It's a fairly simplistic notion, but if you're paying more now for something - when it's potentially close to a high water mark - then you're returns in the short term are likely to be somewhat stunted. Returns from the underlying companies have a hard time keeping up with high valuations such that investors aren't likely to see a bountiful return in the short run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2f7ad0541af31f8d8438cfa6e0f8f23",
"text": "In less than two decades, more than half of all publicly traded companies have disappeared. There were 7,355 U.S. stocks in November 1997, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. Nowadays, there are fewer than 3,600. A close look at the data helps explain why stock pickers have been underperforming. And the shrinking number of companies should make all investors more skeptical about the market-beating claims of recently trendy strategies. Back in November 1997, there were more than 2,500 small stocks and nearly 4,000 tiny “microcap” stocks, according to CRSP. At the end of 2016, fewer than 1,200 small and just under 1,900 microcap stocks were left. Most of those companies melted away between 2000 and 2012, but the numbers so far show no signs of recovering. Several factors explain the shrinking number of stocks, analysts say, including the regulatory red tape that discourages smaller companies from going and staying public; the flood of venture-capital funding that enables young companies to stay private longer; and the rise of private-equity funds, whose buyouts take shares off the public market. For stock pickers, differentiating among the remaining choices is “an even harder game” than it was when the market consisted of twice as many companies, says Michael Mauboussin, an investment strategist at Credit Suisse in New York who wrote a report this spring titled “The Incredible Shrinking Universe of Stocks.” That’s because the surviving companies tend to be “fewer, bigger, older, more profitable and easier to analyze,” he says — making stock picking much more competitive. Consider small-stock funds. Often, they compare themselves to the Russell 2000, an index of the U.S. stocks ranked 1,001 through 3,000 by total market value. “Twenty years ago, there were over 4,000 stocks smaller” than the inclusion cutoff for the Russell 2000, says Lubos Pastor, a finance professor at the University of Chicago. “That number is down to less than 1,000 today.” So fund managers have far fewer stocks to choose from if they venture outside the index — the very area where the best bargains might be found. More money chasing fewer stocks could lead some fund managers to buy indiscriminately, regardless of value. Eric Cinnamond is a veteran portfolio manager with a solid record of investing in small stocks. Last year, he took the drastic step of shutting down his roughly $400 million mutual fund, Aston/River Road Independent Value, and giving his investors their money back. “Prices got so crazy in small caps, I fired myself,” he says. “My portfolio was 90% in cash at the end, because I couldn’t find anything to buy. If I’d kept investing, I was sure I’d lose people their money.” He adds, “It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done professionally, but I didn’t feel I had a choice. I knew my companies were overvalued.” Mr. Cinnamond hopes to return to the market when, in his view, values become attractive again. He doesn’t expect recent conditions to be permanent. The evaporation of thousands of companies may have one enduring result, however — and it could catch many investors by surprise. Most research on historical returns, points out Mr. Mauboussin, is based on the days when the stock market had twice as many companies as it does today. “Was the population of companies so different then,” he asks, “that the inferences we draw from it might no longer be valid?” So-called factor investing, also known as systematic or smart-beta investing, picks hundreds or thousands of stocks at a time based on common sources of risk and return. Among them: how big companies are, how much their shares fluctuate, how expensive their shares are relative to asset value and so on. But the historical outperformance of many such factors may have been driven largely by the tiniest companies — exactly those that have disappeared from the market in droves. Before concluding that small stocks or cheap “value” stocks will outrace the market as impressively as they did in the past, you should pause to consider how they will perform without the tailwinds from thousands of tiny stocks that no longer exist. The stock market has more than tripled in the past eight years, so the eclipse of so many companies hasn’t been a catastrophe. But it does imply that investing in some of the market’s trendiest strategies might be less profitable in the future than they looked in the past.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dc5ad53dbebd7ef9cc8e2a028298b67",
"text": "\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be1fa1dd1241182e1c2149af0395dc19",
"text": "Conglomerates don't work. We've seem thay countless times in countless periods in countless places in history... A focused company will always outperform an unfocused company in the long run... Grocery stores trade at tiny multiples. Tech firms at massive multiples. The instant you buy a 3x EBITDA when you're trading at 15x EBITDA, you've increased the market value of the acquired firm by 5x...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4d030a54052cb3d51590f518fd22cdc",
"text": "What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere. For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f3110fdef957efa59fcd76665445f4d9
|
Diagnostic Questions to Determine if Renter intends to pay
|
[
{
"docid": "cf35607b8534539b4a3d75e8f5882e5b",
"text": "Firstly, how far behind on rent are they? Have you sent them notices in writing about late rent, and if so how many have you had to send? How often do they say they are going to do things (like pay overdue rent) and they never do? To tell you the truth IMHO, if they are starting to be regularly late in rent payments and they don't do things they say they are going to do - then it is time to evict them. In NSW Australia, if the tenant is more than 2 weeks late in rent, and prior to them reaching 2 weeks late you have called them asking for late rent and sent notices, you can evict the tenants. If the tenants do not leave you can apply to the Tribunal to get them out and ask for outstanding money to be paid to you. However, if it does get to this stage, the tenants may be pissed off so may do some damage to the property in retaliation. Then you have to go back to the Tribunal to get the Tenant's Bond (Security Deposit) and any other funds to repair any damages done to your place. The longer you leave it the worse it will get. We had some tenants similar to this which we finally got out earlier this year. They would say they would pay rent due by the end of the week and no money would come by the end of the week. We took them to Tribunal and got them out, and we got the Bond plus unpaid rent and other money for damages and leaving the place dirty (over and above the Bond) awarded to us - just under $4K. The tenants said they couldn't pay and so went on a payment plan to pay about $135 every 2 weeks. They didn't pay any of the payments, so then we went to the local court to get a sheriff to go to their new place and take their property. The must have gotten scared from this because they approached the local court and agreed to pay $60 per week. We have currently received about 10 payments so it will be a long time before we get all our money back. As I said the longer you leave it the worse it can get. You should also look at improving your criteria for selecting new tenants. I have given an answer to this question How to choose a good tenant as a private landlord? Hopefully it can give you some ideas of what to ask for when searching for your next tenant. Update due update in Question Six weeks behind in rent is quite a bit to be behind. If the landlord had been asking the tenant to pay the late rent during this period and the tenant had been giving excuses why the rent was late and saying they would pay it by a certain time but never did - it is a big sign that they will tell you lies. If this is the first time they have been late in paying rent and now they are back up to date with the rent, you might want to give them one more chance. If this is a pattern that happens regularly it is better to get them out, as it will happen again, you will get in an argument with them and then they might stop paying rent altogether. You can usually gain a better perspective of the tenants from their action rather than their words - that is why ascertaining their past rental history is so important when finding a new tenant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcfb94807ecbf6a57b0435b1d135e4c6",
"text": "\"Assuming the renter was properly vetted, the only question worth asking is \"\"what has changed in your life?\"\" Perhaps one of the earners has lost a job, or has moved out because a couple has broken up. If nothing has changed but they just don't feel like paying you, start the eviction process. If something has changed and you assess that it's temporary (I lent my brother money and he didn't pay me back - I'll be behind for a few months but I will catch up; my employer went out of business and didn't pay me for the last two weeks - I have a new job already and am waiting for my first paycheque) then perhaps you are willing to wait. If something has changed and it seems pretty permanent then you might reluctantly start the process. Depending on how long it takes where you live, the renter might get things under control before you finish.\"",
"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": "026e024f3cd4152250820734cc7b61c0",
"text": "This is business as usual, except that you need to keep in mind that the corporate entity is separate from the individual. As such - all the background checks and references should be with regards to the actual renter - the corporation. You should be cautious as it is not so easy to dissolve an individual (well... Not as easy, and certainly not as legal), as it is to dissolve the corporation. So you may end up with a tenant who doesn't pay and doesn't have to pay because the actual renter, the corporation, no longer exists. So check the corporation background - age, credit worthiness, tax returns/business activity, judgements against, etc etc, as you would do for an individual.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ba2f8a6e5b6aa6217e8e82245d0ae7b",
"text": "OP, I'd wait until you see the itemized list. And then go from there. From the sound of it, it seems that the repairs is pretty major. I'd double check the lease contract to see if there were any clauses/term that made the tenant responsible. This could be from appliances to repairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05fdd68eae7c96476e7ec9e175d4cc54",
"text": "This is typically an issue for local law and regulation. Once one person moves out, I would recommend one of the following options: Generally speaking, if there are clear records of all of the payments made by both parties, all of the costs associated with the maintenance and who made what use of the place, the final ownership can be resolved fairly even in the absence of a clear agreement. The pain and hassle to do it, though, is generally not worth the effort - even if it's an amicable relationship between the two owners. Your best bet is to agree as early as possible on what you plan to do, and to write it down - if you didn't have a contract before moving in together, write one up now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ca120add697e990f8a83fa86dcf8f7",
"text": "It isn't EFT, but you might mention to your tenant, that many banks offer a Bill Pay service (example) where the bank will automatically mail a check to the right person for you. I have my rent setup this way. My bank will send a rent check directly to my landlord 5 days before it is due.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb4e4ab42d0f4b92eec1073b44081f8c",
"text": "Renters' Insurance should also have some level of liability coverage. I.e.: if you caused a flooding because you went on and broke the pipe, or a fire because you smoked in the bed - there should be some level of coverage for that. However, most of the damage the tenant can do is probably not accidental. If you broke the pipe - you probably did something wrong. If you caused fire by smoking in bed - you obviously did something wrong. While seemingly accidental, you're deeply at fault. Insurance companies are not in business for rewarding risky behavior. Accidents where the tenant has nothing to do with what happened (earthquakes, fires because of, say, wiring, flooding because it rained too much, or bird flying into a window and shattering it) - are covered by the homeowner's insurance. In any case, talk to your insurance agent about your specific policy and concerns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f43747a6b2e073026321a122a0d9398",
"text": "\"When you buy a house, the real estate agent or title company normally draws up a big sheet with all the costs and payments involved. There are typically two columns: one for amounts paid to or paid by the seller, and another for amounts paid to or paid by the buyer. Who is responsible for what is a legal question: this is pretty fixed. But it's very common for the seller to agree to pay some portion of the buyer's closing costs. In any house sale I've ever been involved in, whether as buyer or seller, nobody bothers to say which costs the seller is agreeing to pay. Rather, the seller just agrees to a number. Then somewhere on the sheet of costs there will be a line that says \"\"closing costs paid by seller\"\" or some such wording, and then it shows a minus to the seller and a plus to the buyer. (Or something equivalent, depending on how the sheet is organized.) The amount is negotiated. When you make an offer, you'll say whatever numbers you are prepared to offer, like \"\"I offer to pay $100,000 for the house, seller to pay $3,000 of closing costs\"\". And whatever other conditions, seller to repair the leak in the roof, whatever. It makes sense for the seller to pick up some share of the closing costs, because the seller normally walks away with cash in hand while the buyer is struggling to come up with enough cash to make a down payment and pay all the closing costs, i.e. the seller probably can afford to give up some cash while the buyer may be struggling to come up with cash. The only costs I can think of that I've had before closing day are, (a) Earnest money. (b) Inspection. (c) Credit check or application fee to bank. Earnest money is applied to the purchase price at closing, so it's pretty much a moot point. The application fee is a potential deal-breaker. I've never heard of a seller agreeing to pay this, but I guess they could. But if you can't get the loan, you probably won't buy the house, so the seller would be out money for nothing. Everything else is normally paid on closing day. They total up all the costs and all the money floating around and at the end the seller gets one check that is the net of everything and the buyer writes one check that is the net of everything, and the realtor or title company deals with getting the money to the right people. So there's normally no issue of paying things as they come up. You do it all at once.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a811ba05b575681ba2d20adffe6a2fc",
"text": "This is something you are going to have to work out with the leasing company because your goal is to get them to make an exception to their normal rules. I'm a little surprised they wouldn't take 6 months pre-payment, plus documentation of your savings. One option might be to cash in the bonds (since you said they are mature), deposit them in a savings account, and show them your account balance. That documentation of enough to pay for the year, plus an offer to pay 6 months in advance would be pretty compelling. Ask the property manage if that's sufficient. And if the lease is for one year and you're willing to pay the entire year in advance, I can't see how they would possibly object. If your employment prospects are good (show them your resume and explain why you are moving and what jobs you are seeking) a smart property manager would realize you'll be an excellent, low-risk tenant and will make an effort to convince the parent company that you should live there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4ba0d02eef394fb45b1f529b16dd894",
"text": "There are probably specific laws that control landlord/tenant rent disputes. But your friend's argument assumes that there aren't. Let's assume that there aren't. So there are two possibilities. Either the contract directly addresses this issue or it doesn't. If the contract directly and specifically addresses this issue, then that controls. Your friend is not claiming that it is specifically addressed. So the general principle is this -- when something occurs within a contract that wasn't explicitly discussed by the parties, courts will try to figure out what the parties likely would have agreed to had they discussed the specific issue (without changing the agreed terms of the contract). This should produce the result that is fair to both parties. Your friend is arguing then that had he and the landlord discussed the issue, the landlord would have agreed that in the event he is no longer able to accept credit cards easily, your friend could live there rent free. That doesn't seem right to me. Does it seem right to you? Much more likely they would have agreed that he might have some leeway to work out a new payment scheme and maybe some late rent should be forgiven if he made an attempt to pay on time but couldn't make arrangements. But I don't see more than that being reasonable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58adb939b72e4e204fe83ac37fdbc96c",
"text": "To point #1: We are moving but I don't know If I can afford the rent as the family grows I would start by looking at your debt-to-income ratio. In the US, most banks look at this for mortgage purposes, but it also gives you a general idea of what monthly mortgage payments will be comfortable given your particular financial situation. Think of it this way, if a bank is unwilling to lend you money because of a high debt-to-income level, this indicates that you have very little leeway with regard to your budget. So a lower number indicates that you will have more flexibility and comfort with meeting your rent/mortgage obligations when unforeseen bills pop up. The article below indicates having < 43% DTI is ideal (in the US). Here's a link to a debt to income calculator and some extra info (I suggest finding one aimed at the UK market): WellsFargo debt to income calculator Why is the 43% debt to income ratio important? Point #2: How can a person measure how much to spend on food, car, bills or rent from his salary? Is there a formula to keep in check? Other answers have addressed how to make a budget, so I will not repeat that. However, here's another angle with regards to spending/saving. This article recommends 50/30/20: According to the popular 50/30/20 rule, you should reserve 50 percent of your budget for essentials like rent and food, 30 percent for discretionary spending, and at least 20 percent for savings. Read more at: https://www.moneyunder30.com/how-much-should-you-save-every-month-2 In the real world, these goals may not be realistic, and different people have different ideas about how aggressive to be with regards to savings. However, you can get a general idea and adapt for your particular needs. Point 3: I find myself looking at my account every single day and get tensed and sad because almost whenever the money (pay) comes in I freak out that after everything there is nothing for us to enjoy or save.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af82ecd5c9fe20d9396c3553107d157",
"text": "Explain the situation to a landlord and offer to prepay a few months of rent in advance as a guarantee. This may or may not work, but being honest and committed may just be the answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95256edb22555049c2e5d130e88e5287",
"text": "\"Get everything in writing. That includes ownership %, money in, money out, who is allowed to use the place, how much they need to pay the other partners, who pays for repairs, whether to provide 'friends and family' discounts, who is allowed to sell, what happens if someone dies, how is the mortgage set up, what to do if one of you becomes delinquent, etc. etc. etc. Money and friends don't mix. And that's mostly because people have different ideas in their head about what 'fair' means. Anything you don't have in writing, if it comes up in a disagreement, could cause a friendship-ending fight. Even if you are able to agree on every term and condition under the sun, there's still a problem - what if 5 years from now, someone decides that a certain clause isn't fair? Imagine one of you needs to move into the condo because your primary residence was pulled out from under you. They crash at the condo because they have no where else to go. You try to demand payment, but they lost their job. The agreement might say \"\"you must pay the partnership if you use the condo personally, at the standard monthly rate * # of days\"\". But what is the penalty clause - is everything under penalty of eviction, and forced sale of the condo and distribution of profits? Following through on such a penalty means the friendship would be over. You would feel guilty about doing it, and also about not doing it [at the same time, your other partner loses their job, and can't make 1/3rd of the mortgage payments anymore! They need the rent or the bank will foreclose on their house!] etc etc etc Even things like maintenance - are the 3 of you going to do it yourselves? Labour distributed how? Will anyone get a management fee? What about a referral fee for a new renter? Once you've thought of all possible circumstances and rules, and drafted it in writing, go talk to a lawyer, and maybe an accountant. There will be many things you won't have considered yet, and paying a few grand today will save you money and friends in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ca1b59e45e7dd98ad3c7f6ba8724c30",
"text": "They call you because that is their business rules. They want their money, so their system calls you starting on the 5th. Now you have to decide what you should do to stop this. The most obvious is to move the payment date to before the 5th. Yes that does put you at risk if the tenant is late. But since it is only one of the 4 properties you own, it shouldn't be that big of a risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08666a519cef7d9cc65ae83d41f3a360",
"text": "It sounds extremely fishy to me. Who has $750 in cash in his pocket and uses it to pay rent?? I would ask the tenant to show a statement from her checking account which shows that she took out that much cash in the days before the 'payment', and if she cannot provide it (or another convincing explanation), I would consider it a lie and request payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28fbd6147331296e24091a48b5f615a7",
"text": "It is important to understand that when or before you received services from your medical provider(s), you almost certainly signed a document stating that you understand that you are fully responsible for the entire bill, even though the provider may be willing to bill the insurer on your behalf as a service. In almost all cases, this is the arrangement, so it is very unlikely that you will be able to dispute the validity of the bill, since you did receive the service and almost certainly agreed to be fully responsible for the payments. With regard to the discounts, your medical provides have likely contracted with your insurer to provide services at a certain price or discount level, so I would base all of your negotiations with the providers and/or the collectors on those amounts. They can't legitimately bill you for the full amount since you are insured by a company they have a contract with, and you are not self-pay/uninsured, and the fact that they haven't been paid by your insurer doesn't change that, because the discount likely depends on the contact they have with your insurer and not whether or not they are billed/paid by your insurer. Please note - this is a common arrangement, but I'd recommend that you verify this with your insurer. Unfortunately, payment in 90+ days is often typical by insurance standards, so it's not yet clear to me whether or not your insurer has broken any laws such as a Prompt Pay law, or violated the terms of your policy with them (read it!). However, you need to find out which claims rep/adjuster is handling your claims and follow up with them until the payments are made. It's not personal, so make this person's life miserable until it is done and call them so often that they know it's you by the caller ID. I would also recommend contacting the collector(s), and letting them know that you don't have the money and so will not be able to pay, provide them with copies of the EOBs that state that the insurance company plans to pay the providers, and then ignore their calls/letters until the payments are made. When they call, simply reiterate that you don't have the money and that your insurance company is in the process of paying the bills. You have to expect that you will be dealing with a low-paid employee that is following a script. You are just the next person on their robo-call list, and they are not going to understand that you don't have a pile of money laying around with which to pay them, even if you tell them repeatedly. Make sure that you at no point give them access to any of your financial accounts, such as a checking or savings account, or a debit card - they will access it and clean you out. It is likely that your insurance provider will pay the providers directly since they were likely billed by the providers originally. If the providers have sold the debt to the collectors (and are not just employing a collector for debt they still own), you may have to follow up with the providers as well and make sure that the collection activity stops, since the providers may also need to forward the payments to the collectors once they are paid by the insurance company. Of course, if the insurer refuses to pay the claims, at that point I would recommend meeting with a lawyer to seek to force them to pay.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a7a92689cc2b312fce7298ca251f028e
|
I'm 18. How to build good monthly income at my 20's?
|
[
{
"docid": "645b5652a6f879ab54115823df1bb1de",
"text": "Market rate of return averages about 8% annually (sometimes more, sometimes less or negative). To get 30k monthly -- even taking that as pretax -- you're talking about 360k yearly. Divide that by 0.08 and you need to have savings of 4.5 million--- and really you should double that for safety.. Tl;dr: forget it. Added thought: If you really have $20k/month coming in, you really have no business asking the Internet for advice. Hire a professional financial advisor (not a broker, someone who is paid a flat fee for their expertise and has no incentives to give you less-than-optimal advice). . The money they will save/make for you will more than pay for their hire.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae8f67bfd285b1254b3005ffff7b1f00",
"text": "It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c3ab9966a76b7e5083e98d3517707b29",
"text": "I wouldn't be too concerned, yet. You're young. Many young people are living longer in the family home. See this Guardian article: Young adults delay leaving family home. You're in good company. Yet, there will come a time when you ought to get your own place, either for your own sanity or your parents' sanity. You should be preparing for that and building up your savings. Since you've got an income, you should – if you're not already – put away some of that money regularly. Every time you get paid, make a point of depositing a portion of your income into a savings or investment account. Look up the popular strategy called Pay Yourself First. Since you still live at home, it's possible you're a little more loose with spending money than you should be – at least, I've found that to be the case with some friends who lived at home as young adults. So, perhaps pretend you're on your own. What would your rent be if you had to find a place of your own? If, say, £600 instead of the £200 you're currently paying, then you should reduce your spending to the point where you can save at least £400 per month. Follow a budget. With respect to your car, it's great you recognize your mistake. We're human and we can learn from our mistakes. Plan to make it your one and only car mistake. I made one too. With respect to your credit card debt, it's not an insurmountable amount. Focus on getting rid of that debt soon and then focus on staying out of debt. The effective way to use credit cards is to never carry a balance – i.e. pay it off in full each month. If you can't do that, you're likely overspending. Also, look at what pensions your employer might offer. If they offer matching contributions, contribute at least as much to maximize the tax free extra pay this equates to. If you have access to a defined benefit plan, join it as soon as you are eligible. Last, I think it's important to recognize that at age 23 you're just starting out. Much of your career income earning potential is ahead of you. Strive to be the best at what you do, get promotions, and increase your income. Meanwhile, continue to save a good portion of what you earn. With discipline, you'll get where you want to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61939ffa182c74f23f6d41955d784fa6",
"text": "\"Yeah, pretty much. That's really par for the course among underemployed twenty-somethings in New York. To be fair, I've also lived in cost-inflated areas my whole life, so I'm used to it, and know how to work around it. Even so, with that 18k I'm able to support a decent single malt scotch habit. The only thing I may have fudged a little is that I do a some freelance photography on the side, and I use money from that to buy myself a new pair of red wing boots and some nice raw denim jeans every year or so. Which I guess would make my income more like an even $20,000. Sure, I wish I made more so I could have some savings and a little security, and I'm certainly not saying I want to live like this when I'm 35. But I do alright. Point is, people forget that this city is full of poor people, and it wouldn't exist if they couldn't survive doing menial jobs for minimum wage. My neighborhood is full of peurto rican single parents, flipping burgers for less than I make an hour, pulling down maybe thirty grand a year. To a lot of people I know, a $60,000 year would be a fortune. There's a huge difference between \"\"doing alright\"\" and this privileged idea of \"\"getting by\"\" most people raised in the upper middle class cling to.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "877c80d4c7eec378e1c9a17a7bda4a83",
"text": "Assume you will need to retire with a few million in the bank to maintain an average lifestyle. I had an analysis done for me (at 33) that shows my family, to keep it up lifestyle will need to have 3.4MM in the bank so in retirement I can draw down enough cash. This number reflects inflation. Now that you are 18, if you make consistent but small savings you will achieve that financial stability. Try to make it automatic so you aren't tempted to spend. There is more you can do but since you have such an early start, you can do less than most people and still have plenty. Even thought it is great you are thinking about it, don't forget to be young, move around lots and have fun. Just pay yourself first and have fun second. Also, thank whoever guided you to this point. If you did it all on your own, be proud.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd0dd85bad94d6fbb950e2764c032786",
"text": "\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \"\"big expenses\"\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12a5dfefae5533d02fc029493de8e23b",
"text": "\"First of all, never is too late to develop good habits. So, you know what you want to do and you are going about the how now... First, you should pay off any consumer debt except from mortgage which should be planned for. Prioritize your consumer debt (credit cards, consumer loans, etc) according to the interest rates, starting with the one with the highest interest and going to the one with the lowest one. Because you should make quite the investments to pay off this interest debt and still make a profit. Second, you should start saving some money. The 10% rule of thumb is a good one and for starters having aside the money you need to get by for at least 3 months is quite okay. As they say, cash is king. Now, that you actually realize the amount you can spare each month to start investing (assuming you had to do something of the aforementioned) it's time to see the risk you are comfortable taking. Different risk-taking views lead to different investing routes. So, assuming once again that you are risk averse (having a newborn baby and all) and that you want something more than just a savings account, you can start looking for things that don't require much attention (even more so if you are going on you own about it) such as low risk mutual funds, ETF (Exchange Traded Funds) and index funds to track indexes like FTSE and S&P500 (you could get an average annual return of 10-12%, just google \"\"top safe etfs\"\" for example and you could take a quick look at credible sites like forbes etc). Also, you can take a look at fixed income options such as government bonds. Last but not least, you can always get your pick at some value companies stocks (usually big companies that have proven track record, check warren buffet on this). You should look for stocks that pay dividends since you are in for the long run and not just to make a quick buck. I hope I helped a bit and as always be cautious about investing since they have some inherent risks. If you don't feel comfortable with making your own investment choices you should contact a specialist like a financial planner or advisor. No matter what the case may be on this, you should still educate yourself on this... just to get a grasp on this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "675c817fff9effaeeb84d00b60cd4995",
"text": "\"This may sound very \"\"tongue in cheek\"\", but the best thing you can invest in is to raise your income in order to increase your retirement savings. How much are you able to contribute to retirement now? I think you would be lucky to do $150/month and most months probably less than that. However, if you were making like 60k/year, and allowed a little lifestyle bloat, you could probably easy put away 20k/year. Once you are able to do that the savings you can manage now will be quickly eclipsed. Often times when people consider \"\"having their money work for them\"\" they often neglect to factor risk. Prior to investing one should have a proper emergency fund in place. That is 6 months or so of living expenses in a nice safe savings account. Those earn about 1.25% these days, which is pretty meager, but it does earn something. Once the emergency fund is in place, one can invest with impunity. Without it, you will have to liquidate investments if economic calamity strikes you. This could be done at a loss furthering the harm done by the calamity. Increase your income and create an emergency fund. Do those things first.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d003b07bc1b303441f2b89575c367b78",
"text": "\"It all depends on what your financial goals are when you are ready. You sound like you could be ready today if you wanted to be. The steps that I would take are. Create a monthly draft budget. This doesn't have to be something hard and fast, just a gague of what your living expenses would be compared to your after-tax salary. Make sure there would be room for \"\"fun\"\" money. a. Consider adding a new car fund line item to this budget, and deducting that amount from your paycheck starting now so that you can save for the car. Based on the most realistic estimate that you can make, you'll get a good idea if you want to spend the money it takes to move out alone now or later. You'll also see the price for various levels of rentals in your area (renting a single family home, townhouse, condo, apartment, living in a rented room or basement, sharing a place with friends, etc) and know some of the costs of setting up for yourself. Since you're looking at the real estate market, you may want to do a cost comparison of renting versus buying. I've found the New York Times interactive graphic on this is excellent. If you are looking to buy, make sure to research the hidden costs of buying thoroughly before taking this step. To answer your last question, if you have the cash you should consider upping your 401K investment (or using Roth or regular IRA). Make sure you are investing enough to get your full employer match, if your employer offers one, and then get as close as you can to government maximum contribution limits. Compound interest is a big deal when you are 23.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e29fa4421236af230cf2f47a04c70e",
"text": "\"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"",
"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": "32c2294f4580f8255391a8dae4989cf4",
"text": "\"If you're making big money at 18, you should be saving every penny you can in tax-advantaged retirement accounts. (If your employer offers it, see if you can do a Roth 401(k), as odds are good you'll be in a higher tax bracket at retirement than you are now and you will benefit from the Roth structure. Otherwise, use a regular 401(k). IRAs are also an option, but you can put more money into a 401(k) than you can into an IRA.) If you do this for a decade or two while you're young, you'll be very well set on the road to retirement. Moreover, since you think \"\"I've got the money, why not?\"\" this will actually keep the money from you so you can do a better job of avoiding that question. Your next concern will be post-tax money. You're going to be splitting this between three basic sorts of places: just plain spending it, saving/investing it in bank accounts and stock markets, or purchasing some other form of capital which will save you money or provide you with some useful capability that's worth money (e.g. owning a condo/house will help you save on rent - and you don't have to pay income taxes on that savings!) 18 is generally a little young to be setting down and buying a house, though, so you should probably look at saving money for a while instead. Open an account at Vanguard or a similar institution and buy some simple index funds. (The index funds have lower turnover, which is probably better for your unsheltered accounts, and you don't need to spend a bunch of money on mutual fund expense ratios, or spend a lot of time making a second career out of stock-picking). If you save a lot of your money for retirement now, you won't have to save as much later, and will have more income to spend on a house, so it'll all work out. Whatever you do, you shouldn't blow a bunch of money on a really fancy new car. You might consider a pretty-nice slightly-used car, but the first year of car ownership is distressingly close to just throwing your money away, and fancy cars only make it that much worse. You should also try to have some fun and interesting experiences while you're still young. It's okay to spend some money on them. Don't waste money flying first-class or spend tooo much money dining out, but fun/interesting/different experiences will serve you well throughout your life. (By contrast, routine luxury may not be worth it.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e47291247820bf954bd91797a0b22ad",
"text": "\"So my read on the question is \"\"How do I invest 300k such that it earns me a 'living wage' without the ongoing grind inherent in most formal employment?\"\" Reading the other answers to date it looks like most of them are thinking in terms of investment accounts and trying to live off of the earnings from such. I wanted to throw out a couple of alternative choices that may be worth considering... The first is real-estate investing. $300k should allow you to pick up 2 or 3 single family dwellings with little or no mortgage. Turning them into rentals placed with a good property management company should easily pay their expenses and provide a consistent income with minimal effort/attention from you. Similar story with buying into multifamily housing or commercial real-estate. Your key concern here is picking the right market in which to buy and finding a reputable manager to handle the day to day issues on your behalf. Note that you are not overly concerned with the potential resale value of the property(s), but the probable rental income they can generate, these are separate concerns that may not align with each other. Second is buying/founding a business that has a general manager other than yourself. Franchise ownership may be a potential option for you under the circumstances. The key concern here is picking the business, location, and manager that make you comfortable in terms of the risk involved. You need the place to make enough money to pay for itself and the salary of everyone working there, with enough left over for you to live on. Sounds easy enough, but not so much in practice. Generally you can expect at least a few years of being hands on and watching things very closely to make sure it is going the way you want it to. Finding a mentor who has done this type of transition before to walk you through it would be strongly advised. So would preparing yourself for a failure or two before you work out the exact combination of factors that work for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "463fa73a0da279bb43beb2b3d9493116",
"text": "\"So you are off to a really good start. Congratulations on being debt free and having a nice income. Being an IT contractor can be financially rewarding, but also have some risks to it much like investing. With your disposable income I would not shy away from investing in further training through sites like PluralSite or CodeSchool to improve weak skills. They are not terribly expensive for a person in your situation. If you were loaded down with debt and payments, the story would be different. Having an emergency fund will help you be a good IT contractor as it adds stability to your life. I would keep £10K or so in a boring savings account. Think of it not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. Having such a fund allows you to go after a high paying job you might fail at, or invest with impunity. I would encourage you to take an intermediary step: Moving out on your own. I would encourage renting before buying even if it is just a room in someone else's home. I would try to be out of the house in less than 3 months. Being on your own helps you mature in ways that can only be accomplished by being on your own. It will also reduce the culture shock of buying your own home or entering into an adult relationship. I would put a minimum of £300/month in growth stock mutual funds. Keeping this around 15% of your income is a good metric. If available you may want to put this in tax favored retirement accounts. (Sorry but I am woefully ignorant of UK retirement savings). This becomes your retire at 60 fund. (Starting now, you can retire well before 68.) For now stick to an index fund, and once it gets to 25K, you may want to look to diversify. For the rest of your disposable income I'd invest in something safe and secure. The amount of your disposable income will change, presumably, as you will have additional expenses for rent and food. This will become your buy a house fund. This is something that should be safe and secure. Something like a bond fund, money market, dividend producing stocks, or preferred stocks. I am currently doing something like this and have 50% in a savings account, 25% in a \"\"Blue chip index fund\"\", and 25% in a preferred stock fund. This way you have some decent stability of principle while also having some ability to grow. Once you have that built up to about 12K and you feel comfortable you can start shopping for a house. You may want to be at the high end of your area, so you should try and save at least 10%; or, you may want to be really weird and save the whole thing and buy your house for cash. If you are still single you may want to rent a room or two so your home can generate income. Here in the US there can be other ways to generate income from your property. One example is a home that has a separate area (and room) to park a boat. A boat owner will pay some decent money to have a place to park their boat and there is very little impact to the owner. Be creative and perhaps find a way where a potential property could also produce income. Good luck, check back in with progress and further questions! Edit: After some reading, ISA seem like a really good deal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a343aab16364936d534a6a452b22d73d",
"text": "\"To buy a house, you need: At least 2 years tax returns (shows a steady income history; even if you're making 50k right now, you probably weren't when you were 16, and you might not be when you're 20; as they say, easy come, easy go). A 20% down payment. These days, that easily means writing a $50k check. You make $50k a year, great, but try this math: how long will it take you to save 100% of your annual salary? If you're saving 15% of your income (which puts you above many Americans), it'll still take 7 years. So no house for you for 7 years. While your attitude of \"\"I've got the money, so why not\"\" is certainly acceptable, the reality is that you don't have a lot of financial experience yet. There could easily be lean times ahead when you aren't making much (many people since 2008 have gone 18 months or more without any income at all). Save as much money as possible. Once you get $10k in a liquid savings account, speak to a CPA or an investment advisor at your local bank to set up tax deferred accounts such as an IRA. And don't wait to start investing; starting now versus waiting until you're 25 could mean a 100% difference in your net worth at any given time (that's not just a random number, either; an additional 7 years compounding time could literally mean another doubling of your worth).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41bf5cbee4234ed07d164d694903290a",
"text": "\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fed470fd16f9984959a9e9b43592c87d",
"text": "\"If the OP is saving 33% if his/her current income, he/she doesn't want or need yet more income from investments right now. The advice on \"\"diversifying\"\" in the other answers is the standard \"\"investment advisor\"\" response to beginner's questions, and has two advantages for the advisor: (1) they won't get sued for giving bad advice and (2) they can make a nice fat commission selling you some very-average-performance products (and note they are selling you \"\"investment industry products,\"\" not necessarily \"\"good investment opportunities\"\" - advisors get paid commission and bonuses for selling more stuff, not for selling good stuff). My advice would be to drip-feed some of your excess income into the emerging market sector (maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the excess), with the intention of leaving it there untouched for up to 20 or 30 years, if need be. At some unknown future time, it is almost certain there will be another EM \"\"boom,\"\" if only because people have short memories. When that happens, sell up, take your profits, and do something less risky with them. You might consider putting another slice of your excess income into the commodities sector. I don't know when the oil price will be back at $150 or $200 a barrel, but I would be happy to bet it will happen sometime in the OP's lifetime... Since you apparently have plenty of income and are relatively young, that is the ideal time to adopt a risky investment strategy. Even if you lose your entire investment over the next 5 years, you still have another 20 years to recover from that disaster. If you were starting to invest at age 56 rather than 26, the risk/reward situation would be very different, of course.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d5780a715228d9522d43d33429f4f64a
|
Postbank (Germany) - transferring money to the US - what are the best options?
|
[
{
"docid": "0878af8aa13a09e310192c9020de479d",
"text": "For those who are interested, I am answering my own question: We used Postbank and transferred 6000 Euro, we chose to Transfer in US$, and selected Shared Fees. There were three fees in total: All in all, I paid ~37$; this is about half of what I expected; and I got a perfect exchange rate. Postbank might have its downsides, but it seems they are still a good deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e128fedd7f4d35a22072d1b0e50533",
"text": "After doing this many times, my preferred method is: The reason being that the US banks will use every chance possible to take your money in fees. Usually the German bank website will tell you what the current exchange rate. You were correct in selecting Transfer in $ and got the exchange rate. In my experience if you transfer in Euros, the US bank at the other end, will take about 3-5%, because they can. Selecting OUR means that you only have the fee taken out by the Source bank. By doing shared, it looks like both banks took their full fee. If you chose OUR, I'm fairly certain you just would have paid the 1.50 and the 20. Chase would not have taken the 15.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "29e0d619dd0009cb1e01b506531c63ad",
"text": "Hmmm... As far as I know wire transfers are still the best option. If you make sure your US account accepts international wires for free (like TD Bank does) you'll have eliminated most of the costs (assuming your foreign bank doesn't charge too much for wiring the funds in the first place). Also, if your able to, you could consider wiring 6 or so months at the same time. I'm not familiar with XE.com but it seems it's not set up for transferring money so much as for trading currencies. While you could probably use it to transfer funds if you'd link both your accounts it seems a rather complicated way to go about things. Paypal could be an option if they'd allow you to set up an account in each country (or if you have a relative that could help out), but it gets more expensive than wire-transfers quickly. As for getting the best exchange rate... I've given up on that a long time ago and have accepted that as the cost of living internationally :).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e7ade037d44f4b9595d38d7ea099389",
"text": "The website http://currencyfair.com/ provides a service which gives you both a decent exchange rate (about 1% off from mid-market rate) and a moderately low fee for the transfer: 4 USD for outgoing ACH in the US, 10 USD for same-day US wire. For the reverse (sending money from the US to EU) the fees are: 3 EUR for an ACH, 8 EUR for a same-day EUR wire. It has been online for quite a while, so I assume its legit, but I'd do a transfer for a smaller sum first, to see if there are any problems, and then a second transfer for the whole sum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac45f2f3493e3a94831f9570e181d4c0",
"text": "in my experience no-cash transactions are the best deal. Take your Portuguese credit card, get some cash ($60) for emergencies. Only pay with your credit card. It's much cheaper because it's all virtual. The best would be to set up an American bank account and transfer the money there. You can also get Paypal account, they offer credit cards too. The virtual banks, credit unions are the best option because they don't charge you for transactions. They don't have expenses with keeping actual money. Find some credit Union that accepts foreigners and take it from there. You can exchange your money on the airport because it's in tax free zone. I recommend the country of the currency since they sell you their 'valuts' and you are buying dollars. Not selling Euros... Make sure to find out what is the best deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78a3f25c1a1aebecd87f0e8740786545",
"text": "My experience is from travelling in Central Europe and Germany, so I've dealt with much smaller amounts of money, but the general principles are the same. Many Visa-brand ATM cards allow you to withdraw money from European ATMs for a 1% fee (plus any fees the bank may charge, my bank charged zero fee) in local currency. Even if the bank charges a 2-3% fee, the combined max 4% fee is going to be a lot smaller than most currency exchange places will offer. There are a lot of exchange offices that are built to scam tourists out of their money. We had no choice but to use one that ended up taking around 10% of the exchanged money (luckily we were only exchanging a small amount of currency). Call your bank and ask what their fees are, and if they are large, find a bank with small or zero fees and move your accounts there. Be sure to notify your bank that you are going to be travelling for an extended time in a foreign country. Literally any ATM (Geldautomat) accepted our card (thank you VISA). We literally walked off the plane with some USD and no foreign currency, and were able to stop at an ATM right outside our hotel (the taxi had a card reader, as most in Munich did). If you have a source of income secured within the country (which I am hoping you do if you will be living there) you could live off of your income, and use your USD to pay off things like credit card bills. Get a Travel Rewards Credit Card (or similar card that offers no foreign transaction fees or free currency transfers). Use this card for anything and everything you can, and pay it with a transfer from your US bank account. Under this method you'll probably have to convert some currency, but you can do so from an ATM easily enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3074655230caab150bc15cef1403b6f8",
"text": "The supposed cheapest way to do this is via a website like: https://transferwise.com/en They claim to have the best exchange rates compared to banks but I have never used them. If you do use them could you let us know in the comments as to how good they are?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "081d5ca1f1657f10952f8c55d28b9dd3",
"text": "We've been in this situation for about 10 years now. We don't have to send money back to Canada very often, but when we do, we typically just write a US$ check/cheque and send it to a relative back home to cash for us. We've found that the Canadian banks are much more familiar with US currency than vice versa, and typically have better exchange rates than many of the other options. That said, we haven't done an exhaustive search for the best deal. If you haven't left Canada yet, you might consider opening up a US funds account at the same bank as your Canadian funds account if the bank will allow you to transfer money between the accounts. I haven't priced out that option, so I don't know what the exchange rate would look like there. Also, you didn't ask about this, but if you have any RRSP accounts in Canada, make sure they're with a broker that is licensed to accept trades from US-based customers. Otherwise, you won't be able to move your money around to different investments within the RRSP. Once you're resident in the US, you will no longer be able to open any new accounts in Canada, but you will be able to maintain the ones you already have.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aa4745955d3eeaef5710f6980b26d55",
"text": "You could buy a money order with your cash, then mail the money order to Deutsche Bank Germany for deposit into your account. You could also buy a prepaid debit card (like a Visa/AMEX giftcard) with your cash. Then, open a new Paypal account and add this prepaid card. Finally, send money to yourself using the prepaid card as the funding source. You could use a money transfer service, like Western Union, to transfer the cash to a friend/family in Germany. Then ask them to deposit it for you at Deutsche Bank Germany.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18397334430909aee08a750b1b380c31",
"text": "Puerto Rico: Last I checked, the Puerto Rico banking system wasn't materially different than working within the US - though some Continental US banks exclude US Territories like Guam and Puerto Rico or charge more when dealing with them. I'm not certain as to why. However, most banks don't see them any differently than a regular US bank. Regarding Wire Transfers (WT): $35 for an ad-hoc WT within the US and Puerto Rico is for the most part average. Wires cost money for the convenience of quick clearing and guaranteed funds. If you have a business/commercial account where you are doing this regularly and paying a monthly fee for a WT service, $10 - $15 each may be expected. I had a business account with US Bank where I paid $15 a month for a WT transfer service and reoccurring template (always went to the same account - AMEX in this case) and the transfers were only $15 each. But, a WT as a general rule, especially when it's only a once a month thing from a personal account, will cost around $25 - $35 in the US and Puerto Rico. As others have said, you can simply mail a personal check just as you would in the US. Many people choose to use Money Orders for Puerto Rico as they can be cashed at the post office (I believe there is an amount limit though). ACH: If you want even easier, I would use ACH. Banks in Puerto Rico use this ACH (Automatic Clearing House) system as we do in the Continental US. It will take a little longer than WT, but as you said - this is fine. Not all US Banks offer free ACH, but a number of them do. Last I checked, Citibank and USAA where among them. Banks like, BAC charges a small fee. Much smaller than a WT! This post may be useful to you: What's the difference between wire transfer and ACH?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc31334f740991c0099db5e9dec0d62d",
"text": "TD now has crossborder banking so you can set up a no-fee no-interest USD account with Tdbank.com and transfer money and pay bills in the US. You just need a minimum balance of $100. I might try Paypal before going that route though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "457d622371d738723f400eaa2f67c280",
"text": "frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "324db0b73ebde0b9908675aaec81ed4f",
"text": "I'm travelling to the US soon and will transfer to a US $ account from either an € account or £ account. My dad recommends transferring € because it's strong at the moment compared to previously. The £ is weak compared to what it was, but still stronger than €. Which is the best option at the moment?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd8b8328d4736d1696c3855cafb9f340",
"text": "My preferred method of doing this is to get a bank draft from the US in Euros and then pay it into the French bank (my countries are Canada and UK, but the principle is the same). The cost of the bank draft is about $8, so very little more than the ATM method. If you use bigger amounts it can be less overall cost. The disadvantage is that a bank draft takes a week or so to write and a few days to clear. So you would have to plan ahead. I would keep enough money in the French account for one visit, and top it up with a new bank draft every visit or two.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71cd751d9d50bc1f90608b1e6d667ad1",
"text": "Is there a limit on how much I can send? Can I send $100K plus? No. Yes. What is the most appropriate way to send money - international wire? Is there international-wire limit restrictions I need to be aware of? Yes. No. Is there any tax obligation should I be aware of when sending money home? If you're a US tax resident (which, as a US citizen, you are), you should be aware of gift tax rules. You'll probably want to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and/or attorney, to understand the ramifications in full. If my family can return my money back in future, great, if not I really don't care, but when (if) I get my money back, will I have to pay taxes on bringing my own money back into US? No. But if you're giving it as a loan - you'll get paid interest which is taxable income to you. Is there anything else do I need to be aware of? The rules of the country which you're sending the money to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2210ac514c3dce54d6f12496a35e9a2d",
"text": "If both bank accounts are in your name, it appears that NS&I have a free International Payments Service. The Post office international payments are apparently free if you transfer at least £250. In both cases, I have not used the services and I'm not sure if there is some catch that I have missed. Perhaps they only appear free due to an unfavourable exchange rate — I don't know. See also: UK fee-free foreign transfer to own account",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c86d14f8aa9808105813991a3ee85129",
"text": "I have taken to using the service TransferWise. I have found them to be faster and cheaper and easier than using SWIFT, given the US Banking's... antiquated system of doing things. I've made dozens of transfers between my international accounts with TransferWise over the past 18 months. Some of them very large and some of them tiny, and even when there's been an issue (I once wrote an offensive joke in my narration for the transfer and they noticed) they have handled it respectfully and quickly. Prior to transferring money to US accounts, I used the SWIFT system - but SWIFT has a pretty spotty record in the US. Some banks you can do it all online but other banks, as Dheer mentioned, you have to go into the bank and sometimes find a senior staff member before you can find someone who even knows what SWIFT is.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ce03e3606c5fe078c9ec16eb5847daac
|
What debts are both partners liable for in a 'community property' state?
|
[
{
"docid": "72bcd4226812b442d53b84d2719e5408",
"text": "No two states have the same exact laws regarding community property. I would recommend asking a competent financial advisor in your area, as they would be more familiar with the local statutes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "305299bd0445f70b928a386809b620c3",
"text": "\"(Yes, I know this is a seven year old question.) Does this only apply to debts that were taken on during marriage Yes or to all debts of both partners? No. The important thing to remember is that it's both debts and assets acquired during the marriage which are shared. This comes from the reality that men in the olden times were the ones in business, accumulating wealth, etc while the woman \"\"made the home\"\". The working assumption was that the woman who made the home was an equal partner with the man, since he benefited from a good home, and she benefited from his income. The fact that pre-marriage debts and assets were not community property also protected the woman, because she was able to then take back her dowry and use that to support herself. (N.B. - I live in a CP state.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c5a5ed7bb766e7dc97275d21ffc8f2e",
"text": "I know one piece of information that can help you (in a macabe sort of way) - from what my wife has told me, if your partner dies, you are not responsible for paying for their debts, especially student loans. I expect the same thing for credit cards - if someone were to happen to charge $2,000 on their credit card and get hit by a bus, the credit card company can cajole and plead for you to pay for it, but you have no legal requirement to do so. Unfortunately I do not have as much information about as if you spouse is living.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "312a0b54124fbd8649a9f9aecd4b5b30",
"text": "I second (or fifth?) the answers of the other users in that this should have been foreseen and discussed prior to entering the partnership. But to offer a potential solution: If the mortgage company allows you to assume the whole mortgage (big if) you could buy the other partner out. To determine what a fair buyout would be, take the current value of the house less the remaining mortgage to get the current equity. Half that is each partner's current gain (or potentially loss), and could be considered a fair buyout. At this point the partner realizes any gains made in the last 5 years, and from now on the whole house (and any future gains or losses) will be yours. Alternatively your partner could remain a full partner (if s/he so desires) until the house sells. You would see the house as a separate business, split the cost as you have, and you would pay fair market rent each month (half of which would come back to you). A third option would be to refinance the house, with you as a sole mortgage holder. To factor in how much your partner should receive out of the transaction, you can take his/her current equity and subtract half of the costs associated with the refi. I would also recommend both of you seek out the help of a real estate lawyer at this point to help you draft an agreement. It sounds like you're still on good terms, so you could see a lawyer together; this would be helpful because they should know all the things you should look out for in a situation like this. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2fdf74a17ba25e4650efadf59e8b366",
"text": "The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2cf81c153c54c9234313f8aa4c5e512",
"text": "Get a lawyer to put this in contract form, with everything spelled out explicitly. What is fair is what the two of you agree upon. My own suggestion: Divide the property into things which are yours, his, and shared, then have each of you be responsible for all your costs plus half the shared costs, but get all the benefits of your half. That would mean that if he rents out his half, all the rental income is his; if you decide to live in your half, all the savings of not paying rent are yours. Each of you pays your half of mortgage, insurance, and other shared costs. Repairs to shared infrastructure should be done by someone both of you trust. If you agree the work is needed and he does it rather than your hiring someone, you owe him the appropriate percentage of the costs; the two of you will need to agree on whether you owe him for that percentage of his time as well. Make sure you agree on some mechanism for one person offering to buy the other out, or to sell their half to the other party... or potentially to someone else entirely. (Personally, I would try to do that at soonest opportunity, to avoid some of the ways this can go wrong -- see past comments about the hazards of guaranteeing a loan; this works or doesn't work similarly.) Does that address your question?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28485e0d5f2e225bab5d6de3d6a31d45",
"text": "Definitely get a lawyer to write up all the details of the partnership in a formal agreement. If your ex does not want to do this, that is a bad sign. You both need to be clear about expectations and responsibilities in this partnership, and define an exit strategy in the case one of you wants out. This is the most fair to both parties. Generally, what is common is that property is split cleanly when the relationship ends. I would strongly recommend you both work towards a clean split with no joint property ownership. How this looks depends on your unique situation. To address your questions 2 and 3: You have two roles here - tenant and owner. As a 50% owner, you are running a business with a partner. That business will have assets (home), income, expenses, and profit. You basically need to run this partnership as a simple business. All the rent income (your rent and the other tenant's) should go into a separate account. The mortgage and all other housing expenses are then paid from only this account. Any excess is then profit that may be split 50/50. All expenses should be agreed upon by both of you, either by contract or by direct communication. You should see a financial professional to make sure accounting and taxes are set up properly. Under this system, your ex could do work on the house and be paid from the business income. However, they are responsible to you to provide an estimate and scope of work, just like any other contractor. If you as a joint owner agree to his price, he then could be paid out of the business income. This reduces the business cash flow for the year accordingly. You can probably see how this can get very complicated very fast. There is really no right or wrong answer on what both of you decide is fair and best. For the sake of simplicity and the least chance of a disaster, the usual and recommended action is to cleanly split all property. Good Luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cd038c053f0255c2835037a6e81d46d",
"text": "The ownership of the house depends on what the original deed transferring title at the time of purchase says and how this ownership is listed in government records where the title transfer deed is registered. Hopefully the two records are consistent. In legal systems that descended from British common law (including the US), the two most common forms of ownership are tenancy in common meaning that, unless otherwise specified in the title deed, each of the owners has an equal share in the entire property, and can sell or bequeath his/her share without requiring the approval of the others, and joint tenancy with right of survivorship meaning that all owners have equal share, and if one owner dies, the survivors form a new JTWROS. Spouses generally own property, especially the home, in a special kind of JTWROS called tenancy by the entirety. On the other hand, the rule is that unless explicitly specified otherwise, tenancy in common with equal shares is how the owners hold the property. Other countries may have different default assumptions, and/or have multiple other forms of ownership (see e.g. here for the intricate rules applicable in India). Mortgages are a different issue. Most mortgages state that the mortgagees are jointly and severally liable for the mortgage payments meaning that the mortgage holder does not care who makes the payment but only that the mortgage payment is made in full. If one owner refuses to pay his share, the others cannot send in their shares of the mortgage payment due and tell the bank to sue the recalcitrant co-owner for his share of the payment: everybody is liable (and can be sued) for the unpaid amount, and if the bank forecloses, everybody's share in the property is seized, not just the share owned by the recalcitrant person. It is, of course, possible to for different co-owners to have separate mortgages for their individual shares, but the legalities (including questions such as whose lien is primary and whose secondary) are complicated. With regard to who paid what over the years of ownership, it does not matter as far as the ownership is concerned. If it is a tenancy in common with equal shares, the fact that the various owners paid the bills (mortgage payments, property taxes, repairs and maintenance) in unequal amounts does not change the ownership of the property unless a new deed is recorded with the new percentages. Now, the co-owners may decide among themselves as a matter of fairness that any money realized from a sale of the property should be divided up in accordance with the proportion that each contributed during the ownership, but that is a different issue. If I were a buyer of property titled as tenancy in common, I (or the bank who is lending me money to make the purchase) would issue separate checks to each co-seller in proportion to the percentages listed on the deed of ownership, and let them worry about whether they should transfer money among themselves to make it equitable. (Careful here! Gift taxes might well be due if large sums of money change hands).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a9a715a99e75fda4a54ce531c8a5a61",
"text": "'If i co-sign that makes me 100% liable if for any reason you can't or won't pay. Also this shows up on a credit report just like it's my debt. This limits the amount i can borrow for any reason. I don't want to take on your debt, that's your business and i don't want to make it mine'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c72e9fc70147ec03d97b8e463320567",
"text": "The contract is not with the guests. The guests will not be paying the $500 fee, the people paying for the wedding have a contract and they will be required to pay the fee. That's reasonable to me. If an employee causes damage the employer can be liable; if I have guests at my home who cause damage I can be found liable. Why not wedding guests?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cfb67b87411b8ab1a0a5d43f0907389",
"text": "In my view you are going through quite a bit of logistics to achieve this. Best is drop this idea. If all of you are paying equally, then there is virtually no gain. A better pact is not to gift each other on wedding. We want to open a joint fixed deposit account in name of each one of us which should be locked-in till 2020 Yes it is possible to have Joint Account with multiple names. Ideally all should be present or a Power of Attorney can be created to include names of people who are not present. We want our money to be risk free and secured. Risk free and secured will mean Fixed Deposits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "394bc28a2c7d606a83f44eb928d11e84",
"text": "Are there any risks you're overlooking? I think if you're considering this at all you're overlooking all of the risks... namely, if you think the issue with him not paying on the loan is the procedure involved with initiating collections or taking him to court for a judgement you're severely underestimating actually collecting after you're awarded a judgement. Typically when people stop paying a debt, its because they don't have money. A judgement doesn't change that. Now you could include in the promissory note a lien on some piece of his property, if he has one. Even with the lien and a judgement against him you can't do much. There are laws related to lending by individuals, related to debt collection, maximum/minimum interest rates; there may even be a law that mandating individuals may only assess simple interest. I doubt you'll be able to find a formal institution that will take over as nothing more than an administrator, though you might as well start researching how to sell the debt once your colleague defaults. IF you can legally amortize the loan at 4% and $450 per month, you're not made whole until about month 78. Months 79 through about 90 will be your profit zone. At this rate of return I'd just buy a muni... If you're willing to kiss this money good bye, and lending it generates more amusement to you than setting it on fire, go for it!",
"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": "c17aff7f263c74b9a7f8eb3c8981ca68",
"text": "Owing money to family members can create serious problems. Taking out a purchase-money mortgage to pay your sister for her share is the best way to avoid future friction and, possibly, outright alienation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b09536c018ae55f2e49ef12bf93dd070",
"text": "\"Both names are on the deed, so the property is jointly owned. You're going to need the second person's signature to be able to sell the property. Ideally the way to know \"\"what happens now\"\" is to consult the written agreement you made before you purchased the house together. The formula for dividing up assets when dissolving your partnership is whatever you agreed to up front. (Your up-front agreement could have said \"\"if you move out, you forfeit any claim to the property\"\".) It sounds like you don't have that, so you'll have to come to some (written) agreement with your partner before you proceed. If you can't come to an agreement, then you'll end up in court, a judge will split up the assets, and the only winners there are the lawyers...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f2563cad205c94298096d00029a66ad",
"text": "Depending on jurisdiction, the fact that you made some payments might give you an ownership share in the house in your own right. What share would be a complex question because you might need to consider both the mortgage payments made and maintenance. Your sister might also be able to argue that she was entitled to some recompense for the risk she describes of co-signing, and that's something that would be very hard to quantify, but clearly you would also be entitled to similar recompense in respect of that, as you also co-signed. For the share your mother owned, the normal rules of inheritance apply and by default that would be a 50-50 split as JoeTaxpayer said. You imply that the loan is still outstanding, so all of this only applies to the equity previously built up in the house prior to your mother's death. If you are the only one making the ongoing payments, I would expect any further equity built up to belong solely to you, but again the jurisdiction and the fact that your sister's name is on the deeds could affect this. If you can't resolve this amicably, you might need to get a court involved and it's possible that the cost of doing so would outweigh the eventual benefit to you.",
"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": "c586d75c50139784c3060279ab46c069",
"text": "Myself and my partner do things a little differently to most. We split accommodation and utilities payments by net income proportion to ensure that we both have the same amount of spending money. For example; The really important bit is net income. We take off a whole bunch of payments, e.g; Our contributions go into a joint account and the rest is our money to spend. The upshot is that we both get to enjoy the same minimum quality of life because we both get the same amount to spend at the bar.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2dc1640730c69025c742f4a5f8dc2b4b
|
How do you write a check with cents?
|
[
{
"docid": "d2acf99226ed0dfb29bdfd1c8bfa6d16",
"text": "\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "58654a927a52b3436e6c0ccfaf535765",
"text": "Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "636702411ab0de17d342fc29a006e2d7",
"text": "\"1.Why is there no \"\"United States Treasury\"\" endorsement? Why should there be, and what do you think it would look like? Some person at Treasury sitting at a desk all day signing \"\"Uncle Sam\"\"? At most you would expect to see some stamp, because it's clear that no person is going to sign all of these checks. 2.Can I have the check returned for proper endorsement? No, this is none of your business unless you have some serious reason to believe that someone other than the treasury cashed your check. (If that were really your concern, then you'd have a bigger issue than the endorsement.) 3.If I am required to endorse checks made out to me, why isn't the US Treasury? As others have noted, an endorsement is often not required as long as the name on the check matches a name on the account to which it is deposited. Individual banks may have stricter rules, but that's between you and your bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee3001cd34c55627e3909d2ff7fb0f3",
"text": "Just take it to a bank that will count it and give you cash or put it in your account. Don't bother counting it and rolling it. They will just break the rolls and throw it into a change counting machine. I did that once and never will again after I saw that years ago. The local bank I used for this offered it as a free service. You could also use those coinstar machines found in many grocery stores and various outlets, but they take like 8 or 9%. Unless time/hassle is of concern, why do that when there are possible free options?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9b2c1bc7a5f523ec9cf5c6bc72ecf44",
"text": "If you are off by coins, how can you be sure that you only made a typo and didn't miss a transaction? To start off, I would strongly you find a way to be precise. It doesn't matter so much in the accounting, but the habit of doing a thorough job will pay off in other dividends down the line. Basically, do the pennies now. Tryout some free online software to save the headache of data entry. But........ Since my primary goal is to get you to do the budgeting, and if you really hate the coins, just be consistent in how you fudge the debits and the credits. Always round down to the nearest whole in income, and always round up on expenses. You won't overspend this way, and your back account should have a little bit of padding because you will assume less money in and more money out. Honestly, I do tracking in both Quicken and Mint.com, so the transaction size is no big deal to me. If I did it all in Excel, I would round to whole notes. You didn't tag your question with a country, so I don't know if or similar is available to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d75262261aaee4439569628a663c0d7",
"text": "\"That's accurate. Here is another risk with the current checking system, which many people are not aware of: Anyone who knows your checking account number can learn what your balance in that account is. (This is bank-specific, but it is possible at the major banks I've checked.) How does that work? Many banks have a phone line where you can dial up and interact with an automated voice response system, for various customer service tasks. One of the options is something like \"\"merchant check verification\"\". That option is intended to help a merchant who receives a check to verify whether the person writing the check has enough money in their account for the check to clear. If you select that option in the phone tree, it will prompt you to enter in the account number on the check and the amount of the check, and then it will respond by telling you either \"\"there are currently sufficient funds in the account to cash this check\"\" or \"\"there are not sufficient funds; this check would bounce\"\". Here's how you can abuse this system to learn how much someone has in their bank account, if you know their account number. You call up and check whether they've enough money to cash a $10,000 check (note that you don't actually have to have a check for $10,000 in your hands; you just need to know the account number). If the system says \"\"nope, it'd bounce\"\", then you call again and try $5,000. If the system says \"\"yup, sufficient funds for a $5,000 check\"\", then you try $7,500. If it says \"\"nope, not enough for that\"\", you try $6,250. Etcetera. At each step, you narrow the range of possible account balances by a factor of two. Consequently, after about a dozen or so steps, you will likely know their balance to within a few dollars. (Computer scientists know this procedure by the name \"\"binary search\"\". The rest of us may recognize it as akin to a game of \"\"20 questions\"\".) If this bothers you, you may be able to protect your self by calling up your bank and asking them how to prevent it. When I talked to my bank (Bank of America), they told me they could put a fraud alert flag on your account, which would disable the merchant check verification service for my account. It does mean that I have to provide a 3-digit PIN any time I phone up my bank, but that's fine with me. I realize many folks may terribly not be concerned about revealing their bank account balance, so in the grand scheme of things, this risk may be relatively minor. However, I thought I'd document it here for others to be aware of.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d8baa527dda7e3d14ef76cae41eb8f",
"text": "As long as someone is willing to take it, you can write it! I personally wrote a check for a new car. The dealership didn't bat an eye.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96e8e92c38f178866e219cae79293113",
"text": "\"Yes. The US Mint has a deal where you can buy dollar coins for face value, free shipping and can charge them to your card. They come in small boxes of 10 x $25 rolls of coins. I'm sure your landlord will be happy to accept cash for the rent. Upon further reflection you spelled it \"\"cheque\"\" which means these coins are not legal tender for you. You might want to add your country to the tags. Note: This 'deal' is no longer available. It was (mis)used to get points/miles on credit cards, and the coins deposited at the bank. There's now a premium to buy the coins on line.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2011d772af8004a0cb808e5e711da8bd",
"text": "\"You are making this far more complex than it needs to be. Direct deposit your savings directly into a savings account. To track spending, invest in a small notebook, and keep a tally of what you spend every day. Also, it seems odd to me that you want to track your budget in minute detail, but coins are \"\"useless\"\" to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc26d4a800bea172012b60ec4364dd83",
"text": "Do a monthly budget, unique to each month, before the month begins, spend all of your money on paper. Use envelopes to help you keep track of how much you have left for things you buy throughout the month. Have separate envelopes for things like groceries, restaurants, clothing, entertainment. Put the amount of money for each category in cash in the envelope. Only spend the money out of the correct envelope and don't mix and mingle between envelopes. Pay in cash, with real money. Don't use credit or debit cards, it's proven you spend more when you are not paying with cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ef100bc0d7e435fdc5fbb103eef4366",
"text": "\"It's a scam. The cashier's check will be forged. Craigslist has a warning about it here (item #3). What kind of payment do you think is not fakable? Or at least not likely to be used in scams? When on craigslist - deal only locally and in person. You can ask to see the person's ID if you're being paid by check When being paid by check, how can seeing his/her ID help? In case the check isn't cashable, I can find that person by keeping record of his/her ID? If you're paid by check, the payers details should be printed on the check. By checking the ID you can verify that the details match (name/address), so you can find the payer later. Of course the ID can be faked too, but there's so much you can do to protect yourself. You'll get better protection (including verified escrow service) by selling on eBay. Is being paid by cash the safest way currently, although cash can be faked too, but it is the least common thing that is faked currently? Do you recommend to first deposit the cash into a bank (so that let the bank verify if the cash is faked), before delivering the good? For Craigslist, use cash and meet locally. That rules out most scams as a seller. What payment methods do you think are relatively safe currently? Then getting checks must be the least favorite way of being paid. Do you think cash is better than money order or cashier order? You should only accept cash. If it is a large transaction, you can meet them at your bank, have them get cash, and you receive the cash from the bank. Back to the quoted scam, how will they later manipulate me? Are they interested in my stuffs on moving sale, or in my money? They will probably \"\"accidentally\"\" overpay you and ask for a refund of some portion of the overpayment. In that case you will be out the entire amount that you send back to them and possibly some fees from your bank for cashing a bad check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb4c6f31eaea21b14c16f88eaab362c",
"text": "\"One easy way to monitor costs in QuickBooks is to establish sub-bank accounts. For example, you may have an asset account called \"\"State Bank\"\" numbered 11100 (asset, cash and cash equivalents, bank). Convert this to a parent account for a middle school by making subaccounts such as At budget formation, transfer $800 from Operations 11110 to Family Fun Committee 11130. Then write all checks for Family Fun from the Family Fun 11130 subaccount. For fundraising, transfer $0 at budget formation to the X Grade accounts. Do deposit all grade-level receipts into the appropriate grade-level subaccounts and write all checks for the grades from the grade-level subaccounts. The downside to the above is that reconciling the check book each month is slightly more complicated because you will be reconciling one monthly paper bank statement to multiple virtual subaccounts. Also, you must remember to never write a check from the parent \"\"State Bank\"\" 11100, and instead write the checks from the appropriate subaccounts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b526fac64b86f0d375209d228854e1b",
"text": "I use paycheckcity.com and first punch in my paycheck and make sure it calculates within a few pennies the value of my actual paycheck. Then I fiddle with withholding values, etc. to see the effect of change. It has been very effective for me over the years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2c8ee8ee3ef896bb3dc414204aa9de5",
"text": "Citibank just sent me a $100 check. Here's how I got it:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20f1faf11e9fc76bc2216ed86c83a0e7",
"text": "\"I know this an old thread, but one that caught my interest as I just moved to the USA from Australia. As per the OP I had never written a check in my whole life, and upon arriving in the US I was surprised as to their proliference. In Australia pretty much all bills you receive can be paid in a number of ways: For small amounts between friends cash is probably used most, but for larger amounts direct transfer is popular. Your friend/landlord will give you their bank account number and BSB number, which identifies their bank, and then you transfer the money in. We don't have a SSN like some other countries. Cheques are still used by some however, esp by the older generations. Now that I'm in the US initially I had tried to set up direct transfer to pay my rent however the bank has a $1000 daily transfer limit. I contacted the bank to get this increased however I was informed that this limit applies to ALL accounts at the bank. I asked how do people pay their rents with this low limit and was told that most people used cheques. (This explains the strange look I got from my landlord when I asked for their bank account details so I could pay the rent!) I now have some bills to pay here and I use online banking. You enter the biller's name and address and then the bank actually prints off a cheque and posts it to the biller on your behalf! My first couple of pays here were also cheques, which were the first actual \"\"paychecks\"\" I had ever received.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
387e897577bc7733e2e04cff118c2e3a
|
Is legal sending dollars to someone in Mexico, and sending them back for profit?
|
[
{
"docid": "2bcc8b74c04144dc676027c589f65a93",
"text": "It is certainly legal to transfer money between people, no matter how often, as long as the money is not originally from illegal sources. If you are gaining in the process, you need to pay taxes on your (net) gain, as on any income; but as always, taxed income is still income. Consider the accumulating transaction cost, the inherent risk (of your friend keeping the money), and the risk of the exchange rate going the other way; but otherwise it is a simple arbitrage business. There are thousands of people who do that all year long at stock exchanges and money markets; you might be able to do it more efficient there, and you don't need a 'friend' on the other side for that.",
"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": "4c30ad0006a1e499ae485f0a559057c3",
"text": "\"You can accept almost anything mutually agreeable to you and the other party as payment. That's the definition of \"\"barter\"\". If you agree to trade manufactured goods for livestock, as long as both parties agree on the terms, I'm not aware of any law that would prohibit it. I hedged with \"\"almost\"\" because of course you can't accept something that is explicitly illegal. Like you can't say you'll accept cocaine as payment. Less obviously, there are laws regulating the sale of guns, nuclear fuel, agricultural products, etc. You'd still have to pay taxes, and it can get complicated to determine the taxable value of the transaction. Sorry, but you can't avoid taxes by getting your income in something other than cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5c208aa15db85fd959b6995ab8b9298",
"text": "In short getting funds converted outside of the Banking channel is illegal in India as Foreign Exchange is still regulated. If you show only a credit from your friend's NRE account to your NRO account [note it can't be your NRE account], it would be treated as GIFT and taxed accordingly, else you would have to show it as loan and pay back. You may show the payback in USD. But then there is a limit of Fx every individual can get converted/repatriate out of India and there is a purpose of remittance, all these complicate this further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8872ea7a2ea65d86a4e2086ad3fcac2d",
"text": "In both the US and UK you are taxed on your income. Transferring your own money from one country to another does not count as income, so you won't be taxed on it. If it's not your money you are transferring that will be different. You may have to report transfers to comply with money laundering rules. You have to report large amounts of cash you bring with you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71cd751d9d50bc1f90608b1e6d667ad1",
"text": "Is there a limit on how much I can send? Can I send $100K plus? No. Yes. What is the most appropriate way to send money - international wire? Is there international-wire limit restrictions I need to be aware of? Yes. No. Is there any tax obligation should I be aware of when sending money home? If you're a US tax resident (which, as a US citizen, you are), you should be aware of gift tax rules. You'll probably want to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and/or attorney, to understand the ramifications in full. If my family can return my money back in future, great, if not I really don't care, but when (if) I get my money back, will I have to pay taxes on bringing my own money back into US? No. But if you're giving it as a loan - you'll get paid interest which is taxable income to you. Is there anything else do I need to be aware of? The rules of the country which you're sending the money to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a267f88078a1e0814649c590faee225f",
"text": "I'd be a bit concerned about someone who wanted to transact that large of a transaction in cash. Also consider what you are going to do with the funds, if you deposit it, you will need to tell the bank where it comes from. Why does the bank want to know, because most legal businesses don't transact business with large sums of currency.. What does that tell you about the likelihood the person you are about to do business with is a criminal or involved in criminal affairs? The lower bill of sale price might be more than just to dodge taxes, it could be part of money laundering.. If they can turn right around and 'sell' the boat for $10K, or trade it in on a bigger boat for the same amount, and have a bill than says $4K, then they have just come up with a legal explanation for how they made 6 grand. and you could potentially be considered an accomplice if someone is checking up on their finances. Really, is it worth the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97ccccec31fb0dd649a0ae28d41d3726",
"text": "There's a difference between your street level drug dealer sending you sales proceeds of $20,000 in $5,000 increments to avoid sending you $10,000 or $20,000 at once to avoid the scrutiny of a government agency that might not be thrilled with your business venture, and a tire shop paying a wholesaler $5,000 each time funds are available up to the amount owed of $20,000. The former is illegal for a few reasons, and the latter is business as usual.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8d2b79642f69b96d682fd6049896ed9",
"text": "I won't think so. Too much trouble for the compliance and internal audit team. Unless you are moving money from Russia, Iran or those non-FATCA countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda9331c5800927240653668f7334abc",
"text": "\"Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your \"\"rarer\"\" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7abe3fcd1e22f5fcc643dd8b81f6c9d4",
"text": "Age old rules about money scams: If a person A wants to send money to person B, they do the following: Person A sends money to person B. Neither of them sends money to you, and you don't send money to either of them. It doesn't make sense! If you give someone money, be prepared that you might not receive that money back. If someone gives you money, be prepared that they can get that money back. Illegal money laundering can put you in jail, even if you pretend to be a blameless victim of a scammer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "232c8e97302d52805bbf4981814ff9d3",
"text": "They made 85 billion from this fiasco....16 is a somewhat fraction of it.... Like HSBC smuggling cocaine for the cartels, they made 15 billion, got a fine of 2. Tell me what other criminal activities net you a profit once you are caught red handed doing so?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3",
"text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07a3309a18a2c1be2bdf75d191c98722",
"text": "If this is your money, and if you can - if asked - prove that you legally made it, there is no limit. You pay taxes on your income, so sending it into the world is tax free. Your citizenship is not relevant for that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8e90732e325599af6175216e695a35f",
"text": "It would be better for you to sell yourself and pay capital gains tax than to transfer to your parents and pay the gift tax. Also, sham transfer (you transfer to your mother only so that she could sell and transfer back to you without you paying taxes) will be probably categorized as tax evasion, which is a criminal offense that could lead to your deportation. What the US should or should not claim you can take to your congressman, but the fact is that the US does claim tax on capital gains even if you bought the asset before becoming US tax resident, and that's the current law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abcb1b0b0dcb18fd1442e0ce54d706b1",
"text": "So your dollar never leaves America until it leaves for an investment - which would be FDI. If you sent the dollar home to Mexico, that’s a remittance current account flow. Then later, you want to use that dollar for a housing investment in Mexico, it’s just domestic investment. If you move to the US, I believe that’s another remittance flow (though it might even be a service flow because the bank is the one moving the dollar!). Then to invest in Mexico you need to go through an FDI channel.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f809139bee3f1d074f9356c036920c41
|
High credit utilization, some high interest - but credit score not overly bad. How to attack debt in this situation?
|
[
{
"docid": "6a9dd6bae4dd9b0df552ce4ddd556727",
"text": "You need to pay off the entire balance of 7450 as soon as possible. This should be your primary financial goal at this point above anything else. A basic structure that you can follow is this: Is the £1500 balance with the 39.9% interest rate the obvious starting point here? Yes, that is fine. But all the cards and overdraft debts need to be treated with the same urgency! What are the prospects for improving my credit score in say the next 6-12 months enough to get a 0% balance transfer or loan for consolidation? This should not be a primary concern of yours if you want to move on with your financial life. Debt consolidation will not help you achieve the goals you have described (home ownership, financial stability). If you follow the advice here, by the time you get to the point of being eligible, you may not see enough savings in interest to make it worth the hassle. Focus on the hard stuff and pay off the balances. Is that realistic, or am I looking at a longer term struggle? You are looking at a significant struggle. If it was easy you would not be asking this question! The length of time will be determined by your choices: how aggressively you will cut your lifestyle, take on extra jobs, and place additional payments on your debt. By being that extreme, you will actually start to see progress, which will be encouraging. If you go in half-committed, your progress will show as much and it will be demotivating. Much of your success will hinge on your mental and emotional toughness to push through the hard work of delaying pleasure and paying off these balances. That is just my personal experience, so you can take it or leave it. :) The credit score will take care of itself if you follow this method, so don't worry about it. Good Luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "693e8f4f219c393c142b1a7c0817c00d",
"text": "The bottom line is you have an income problem. Your car payment seems very high relative to your income and your income is very low relative to your debt. Can you work extra jobs or start a small business to get that income up? In the US it would be fairly easy to work some part time jobs to get that income up about 1000 per month. With that kind of difference you could have this all knocked out (except for the car) in about a year. Then, six months later you could be done with your car. Most of the credit repair places are ripoffs in the US and I suspect it is similar around the world.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "462cd9e75b54c801c994b441e5ba4165",
"text": "While paying off your debt quickly is obviously desirable it is simply not going to be possible. Even with tight budgeting I think you will struggle to put more than £500 or so per month towards your debt. I would keep trying to move the highest interest debt onto something cheaper, be it a loan, a balance transfer credit card ( http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/balance-transfer-credit-cards#nofees ) etc. It is also worth looking at your current credit cards more carefully. Sometimes you may be able to get a balance transfer deal on an existing card by talking to the card issuer, then shuffle your debt around to take advantage of it ( http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/cut-credit-card-interest ) Some think it's taboo but in your position I would also be seriously considering if you have any friends and family who can lend you money at a less crippling interest rate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ad32b8cf0dd0f9cc0e07c5649bfad92a",
"text": "In addition to the advice already given (particularly getting rid of high-interest debt), I would add the following:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b27fe4787eb6e07ed71131bc7357766",
"text": "\"There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that \"\"should I call this principal or interest\"\" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49136c4aa863e265570541bc1bcd0c3a",
"text": "K, welcome to Money.SE. You knew enough to add good tags to the question. Now, you should search on the dozens of questions with those tags to understand (in less than an hour) far more than that banker knows about credit and credit scores. My advice is first, never miss a payment. Ever. The advice your father passed on to you is nonsense, plain and simple. I'm just a few chapters shy of being able to write a book about the incorrect advice I'd heard bank people give their customers. The second bit of advice is that you don't need to pay interest to have credit cards show good payment history. i.e. if you choose to use credit cards, use them for the convenience, cash/rebates, tracking, and guarantees they can offer. Pay in full each bill. Last - use a free service, first, AnnualCreditReport.com to get a copy of your credit report, and then a service like Credit Karma for a simulated FICO score and advice on how to improve it. As member @Agop has commented, Discover (not just for cardholders) offers a look at your actual score, as do a number of other credit cards for members. (By the way, I wouldn't be inclined to discuss this with dad. Most people take offense that you'd believe strangers more than them. Most of the answers here are well documented with links to IRS, etc, and if not, quickly peer-reviewed. When I make a mistake, a top-rated member will correct me within a day, if not just minutes)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "370cf6f6f40a025e10e27035d077e45b",
"text": "In this example you are providing 4x more collateral than you are borrowing. Credit score shouldn't matter, regardless of how risky a borrower you are. Sure it costs time and money to go to auction, but this can be factored into your interest rate / fees. I don't see how the bank can lose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fa07862de504222737b3d46f2e2ed20",
"text": "\"Unless you have a history of over-using credit (i.e. you've gotten yourself into debt trouble), then I think that the banker is giving you bad advice in telling you to get your own credit limit reduced. Having more credit available to you that is left unused will make your utilization ratio lower, which is generally better for your credit score, according to this article on CreditKarma.com. The \"\"sweet spot\"\" seems to be 1-20% utilization of your total credit. (But remember, this is only one factor in your credit score, and not even the biggest-- having a long history of on-time payments counts the most.) My own personal experience seems to bear this out. I have two major credit cards that I use. One card has a high credit limit (high for me anyway) and I use it for just about everything that I buy-- groceries, gas, durable goods, services, you name it. The other card has a limit that is about 1/3 of the first, and I use it for a few recurring bills and occasional purchases where they don't take the first card. I also have a couple of department store cards that I use rather infrequently (typically 1 purchase every 3 months or so). At the end of each month, when the respective statements post, each card has a balance that is 15% or less of the credit limit on that card. I pay off the entire balance on each card each month, and the cycle repeats. I have never been late on a payment, and my credit history for all of these cards goes back 10 years. My credit score is nearly as high as it can go. If having unused credit were a detriment, I would expect my score to be much lower. So, no, having \"\"too much credit available\"\" is not going to hurt you, unless you are not using it at all, or are tempted to abuse it (use too much). The key is to use common sense. Have a small number of cards, keep them active, spend within your means so you can pay off the balance in full after the statement posts, and never be late on your payments. That's all it takes to have good credit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9ad3bad94c76aa6ab2e013dcbfa0c3e",
"text": "Close the account. The age doesn't outweigh the fact that you have to pay for the card. It would be one thing if the credit line was a couple thousand but showing the credit bureaus that you are staying away from the $425.00 doesn't really make them think you are any more trustworthy with your available credit. Utilization matters when you are staying away from much larger chunks of your available credit (across all cards).",
"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": "042f8e55c75b6d2ffa8b5a61201fb7ec",
"text": "Well typically you're borrowing a shit ton of money for 30 years so yeah you're paying a lot in interest over that period. But your situation sounds especially bad, that's over a 10% constant assuming 80% LTV. What are you being quoted, like >9% interest?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29fdf38ff4ab2c12206a69cea90ea65b",
"text": "\"good vs \"\"bad\"\" debt in the context of that post. At least in the UK this can be a good tactic to reduce the cost of credit card debt. Some things to consider\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17959bcfa1b6b44a2e5324c302c4c977",
"text": "This works even better when you have a good credit score when you want to arbitrarily inflate it for bragging rights or lowest interest rates, I'm only pointing this out because it has nothing to do with your current score and CK's recommendation. The presence of an installment loans is 10% of your credit score, according to some credit scoring models. So theoretically someone with a solid 720 score could gain 72 points, while someone with a 480 score would only gain 48 points. But the scores are weighted so you wouldn't get that kind out outcome regardless, it will have less of an impact. You can do this, amongst other things, but if that installment loan alters your utilization of credit it will more greatly lower your score, and the hard inquiry to apply for the loan will also temporarily hurt your score and you also might not be approved. These are the things to consider (but fortunately utilization has no history). Yes you can pay the loan off with a monthly payment. The loan's interest will cost slightly more than the monthly payments, by the end of the loan term. I've done this with a 5 year $500 installment loan at a credit union. As others pointed out, you don't have to spend money to raise your credit score (unnecessary interest, in this case), but you certainly can!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c176cca5b8f22a59fff56c7453193e14",
"text": "\"If the balance on the low rate loan is very high (say, an IBR student loan at 6% that accumulates interest every year), and the balance on the high rate loan (say, a CC at 18%) is comparatively very small, then you'd want to make sure that you've at least \"\"stopped the bleeding\"\" on the high balance loan before starting to pay off the CC.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05c918562abed0a7ee8b25b7106440c5",
"text": "One of the other things you could do to improve your score would be along the lines of what Pete said in his answer, but using the current financial climate to your advantage. I'm not sure what interest rates are available to you in the UK, but I currently have 4 lines of credit aside from my house. One is a credit card I use for every day purchases and like you pay off immediately with every statement. The other three are technically credit cards, however all three were used to make purchases with 0% financing. The one was for a TV I bought that even gave me 5% off if I pay it off within 6 months. That cash has been sitting in my savings since the day I bought it. I'm making regular payments on all three, but not having to pay any interest. My credit score dropped 25 points with the one as it was an elective medical expense (Visian eye surgery), so for the time the balance is near my credit limit. However, that will bounce back up as the balance lowers. My score was also able to take that hit and still be very high. If you don't have 0% (or very close) available, your better bet would be to follow the other suggestions about saving for a sizable down payment, or other every day expenses like a cell phone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7ebf0118a25197053642a73d8a221f2",
"text": "Credit Score is rather misleading, each provider of credit uses their own system to decide if they wish to lend to you. They will also not tell you how the combine all the factoring together. Closing unused account is good, as it reduced the risk of identity theft and you have less paperwork to deal with. It looks good if a company that knows you will agrees to give you more credit, as clearly they think you are a good risk. Having more total credit allowed on account is bad, as you may use it and not be able to pay all your bills. Using all your credit is bad, as it looks like you are not in control. Using a “pay day lender” is VERY bad, as only people that are out of control do so. Credit cards should be used for short term credit paying them off in full most months, but it is OK to take advantage of some interest free credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d60297801e53a0282d1a85eb12c9a5b",
"text": "\"The simple answer is that what you are doing is an incredible waste of time. The normal process is to charge, say, in January, the bill is cut at month end, and due by the 15th of February. No interest accrues. As long as the credit line is sufficient for your monthly spending, that's it. Now, if you are watching your score closely, utilization might become an issue, if the statement amount is much over 20%, there's an impact to your score. This is easily addressed with a second monthly payment, made just before the bill is cut. Keep in mind, the phrase \"\"carrying a balance\"\" commonly means not paying the bill in full, and letting interest accumulate. I understand you didn't mean that. The way you are paying your account isn't common, and really serves no value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "675808629f61d92d9fa2b989e67ef4c3",
"text": "\"A drop in credit score of 300 is pretty significant, right? You describe the cause of this as \"\"unfortunate circumstances\"\". Lets say you observe a mother giving a small child a ball to play with in the median of a busy interstate. Once the inevitable happens, would you also describe that as \"\"unfortunate circumstances\"\"? Because really it is the same thing. You overextended yourself and did not consider risk in the decision to borrow money. This may sound harsh, but you have proven that you cannot handle credit. So your solution is to borrow more? That makes no sense. The best thing you can do for your credit score is to reduce, then eliminate all debt.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eacfdd1383068fd9d7ef41aa2355b7b4
|
Meanings of “price of the derivative”
|
[
{
"docid": "ff16b9f0dd72969ca788f9ce877a97c2",
"text": "@Tim - in this case, a futures contract isn't like an options contract. It's simply a method of entering into an agreement for delivery at a future date. While the speculators appear to have taken over, there are practical examples of use of the futures market. I am a gold miner and I see that my cost is $1200/oz given my quality of ore. I see the price of gold at $1600 and instead of worrying that if it goes too low, I run at a loss, I take advantage and sell contracts to match my production for the next year (or as long as the contracts go, I forget how far out gold futures are). Of course I give up the higher price if gold goes higher, but this scenarion isn't speculation, it's a business decision. The bread maker, on the other hand, might buy wheat futures to guarantee his prices for the next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37b135e4dca1a8ccbea2e58b9507de8c",
"text": "No, it means what it says. Prices change, hence price of the derivative can go down even if the price of the underlying doesn't change (e.g. theta decay in options).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "643e78b1c9d9d924611f22ae25d4853d",
"text": "\"I would differentiate between pricing and valuation a bit more: Valuation is the result of investment analysis and the result of coming up with a fair value for a company and its shares; this is done usually by equity analysts. I have never heard about pricing a security in this context. Pricing would indicate that the price of a product or security is \"\"set\"\" by someone (i.e. a car manufacturer sets the prices of its new cars). The price of a security however is not set by an analyst or an institution, it is solely set by the stock market (perhaps based on the valuations of different analysts). There is only one exception to this: pricing an IPO before its shares are actually traded on an exchange. In this case the underwriting banks set the price (based on the valuation) at which the shares are distributed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa2aae462316eb64f23cb448a361783e",
"text": "I found the answer. It was the Stock Ticker that I was looking for. So, if I understand correctly the price at certain moment is the price of the latest sale and can be used to get a global picture of what certain stock is worth at that certain instant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b25f5bafb3d66343aac4841d554e5e52",
"text": "The missing information is at the end of the first line: the price is from NASDAQ (most specifically Nasdaq Global Select), which is a stock exchange in the USA, so the price is in US Dollars.",
"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": "285a03c9ad4b1e6cab12e0675e95ec57",
"text": "If we were to observe some call price (e.g., 15), and then derived implied volatilities from the BS formula depending on different strike prices but fixed maturity (i.e, maturity = 1, and strike goes from 80 to 140??), would we then see a smile? Yes. Market prices for various strikes and a given maturity often have higher implied volatilities from the Black-Scholes model away from at-the-money. It is not accounted for in the Black-Scholes model in the fact that volatility is not a function of strike, so volatility is assumed to be constant across strikes, but the market does not price options that way. I don't know that a quantitative theory has ever been proven; I've always just assumed that people are willing to pay slightly more for options deep in or out of the money based on their strategy, but I have no evidence to base that theory on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c48d049ed845f825d8950f5148cdde8",
"text": "It's a drive by swipe at technicals, which is fine and all, but I always thought technicals effectively provide odds of an event happening. For example, $XYZ price is a support level, therefore there are increased odds it will bounce higher from these levels, rather than an implied *guarantee* the support will hold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c5ff34a1c34998592e20bd71ee9096a",
"text": "In addition to all these great answers, check out the Wikipedia entry on options. The most important thing to note from their definition is that an option is a derivative (and nothing about any derivative is simple). Because it is a derivative, increases or decreases in the price of the underlying stock won't automatically result in the same amount of change in the value of the option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f027712e7b1c929e772de1fe6eef24",
"text": "Well sure but derivatives valuations that you see on this chart are complete bs. Normally the derivative (future or a swap) is actually worth zero. What this chart is tallying up is the notional which is an arbitrary number only used to calculate the P&L on the derivative. Sorry but this is not really the value of the derivative, so hard to see how derivatives on this chart make any sense at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6ae9f8692786d01c25dbdbbf863086",
"text": "\"When people talk about \"\"the price\"\" of a stock, they usually mean one of the following: Last price: The price at which a trade most recently took place. If someone sold (and someone else bought) shares of XYZ for $20 each, then until another trade occurs, the last price of the stock will be quoted at $20. Bid price: The highest price at which someone is currently offering to buy the stock. Ask price: The lowest price at which someone is currently offering to sell the stock. As you can see, all of these are completely determined by the people buying and selling the stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ebdb762ca62faa89843b89fb5db99de",
"text": "In India, in the money options get exercised automatically at the end of the day and is settled at T+1(Where T is expiry day). This means, the clearing house takes the closing price of the underlying security while calculating the amount that needs to be credited/debited to its members. Source: - http://www.nseindia.com/products/content/derivatives/equities/settlement_mechanism.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f496218b7086cc2c6999a763a43ef8e7",
"text": "Hey! I've just put my take on your question: [What are Derivatives?](http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/08/what-are-derivatives/) Let me know of your thoughts, if you get a chance to read it. I know I haven't covered everything on Derivatives, perhaps not everything our fellow redditors have mentioned - but I kept telling myself it's an introduction to derivatives - not an explanation of everything! :P",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a52969d6de27e78057142e53b34db9c",
"text": "You're realizing the perils of using a DCF analysis. At best, you can use them to get a range of possible values and use them as a heuristic, but you'll probably find it difficult to generate a realistic estimate that is significantly different than where the price is already.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "573857d250c22ecd0a0f9a1a0cacee2e",
"text": "Serious question - I don't work in finance, but I always hear how the big finance firms only hire the best and brightest and if they don't know anything, they'll pick it up quickly. How is it possible that those who work in derivatives find it that difficult to explain them. resistite's definition of derivatives is essentially what is taught to any beginner, so I don't quite understand how anyone with a finance background would find it difficult to explain (at least at a very general level).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71ec30d3609296f94f979a175af9cd19",
"text": "The quotes on JSE are for 100 share lots. The quotes on NYSE are for single shares. That still leaves some price difference, but much less than you calculated. (EDIT: Equivalently, the price is quoted in 1/100th of a Rand. The Reuter's listing makes this explicit since the price is listed as ZAc rather than ZAR. http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=HARJ.J) As noted in the other answer currently up, NYSE is quoting American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) for this company, which is not directly its stock. The ADR in this case, if you check the prospectus, is currently 1 share of the ADR = 1 share of the stock on its home market. A US institution (in this case it looks like BNY Mellon) is holding shares of stock to back each ADR. Arbitrage is possible and does happen. It's not perfect though, because there are a variety of other cost and risk factors that need to be considered. There's a good review here: Report by JP Morgan Some summary points:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64a03e132badfa3d034aa6372607bc69",
"text": "Creditworthiness is proven over time. The longer your track record of making payments on time, the more probable you will stick to credit agreements in future (or so the reasoning goes). Conversely, someone who has only just started applying for credit could be someone whose finances were previously stable but have now started to get into difficulty. Obviously this is not necessarily the case but it is one possible inference. This inference is strengthened when same person applies for further credit in a short space of time. Ultimately, what is considered positive is a stable credit record over a reasonable period of time, because it indicates you stick to payment schedules and don't suddenly need credit due to money problems. Credit card accounts are considered a good indicator of credit status because they imply what kind of borrower you are. Whereas many credit arrangements present a straightforward case of arrears / no arrears (e.g. think of a mobile phone account – either you pay your bill or you don't), with credit cards there is an element of flexibility in how much you borrow, and how much of that you repay. If you run up four figure monthly balances but clear them in full each month without fail, that is a good sign. If your average balance is increasing and you are paying on time but just the minimum amount, that is a potential flag. In other words, credit cards are of particular interest because they paint a more nuanced picture. Provided you use one responsibly, getting and using a credit card may improve your status with credit reference agencies.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
113a5dab7de68d60564eb078c7851f19
|
Should I exchange my Scottish pounds for English ones?
|
[
{
"docid": "1f9c939dc29ef6a5a082622ed6a03305",
"text": "Scottish banknotes are promissary notes of the banks issuing them. Their value will be paid in UK legal tender any time as long as the issuing bank is in business. So they are not going to lose value unless the issuing bank goes bakrupt. Scottish notes may be refused, outside of Scotland, at least, by merchants at their discretion. So if the vote goes the wrong way, merchants in England may refuse accepting these notes even if just to make a point. English notes (those issued by the Bank of England) are the actual UK legal tender. Wether you should change or not is up to you, I believe there's no immenent danger of them becoming worthless any time soon.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e61919cc2567f96df4868a9c4de17281",
"text": "At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d91a22f26eca67e948746de9b9fc394",
"text": "You might want to see this question and its answers. If it was me, I'd prefer to exchange the currency in Germany. Why? When you are in the US you will be on vacation. It does not seem fun to spend vacation time in a bank.",
"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": "7847578cee6631c25a5d983b43d22e33",
"text": "\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \"\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\"\", they sure would answer \"\"No, we can't!\"\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "686c79bee148b44dfd8d5893636b200c",
"text": "Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "614f000308e628a7beaebe5b18c56020",
"text": "Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6f497d0d1f37a618b3d6ef7938703e3",
"text": "Wire transfers are the best method. Costs can vary from $10 to $100 or more, depending on the banks and countries involved. There's rarely any saving using the same bank, although HSBC may have reduced charges if you have Premier accounts in both countries (for a one-off transaction, it may not be worth the effort to open an account). However, that cost is insignificant compared to your possible losses on the currency exchange. Assuming your money is currently in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD), it will need to be converted to US Dollars (USD). One place where it could be converted is at your Hong Kong bank. You'll get their retail rate. Make sure you are aware of the rate they will use, and any fees, in advance. Expect to pay around 2-3% from the mid-market rate (the rate you see quoted online, which doesn't fluctuate much for HKD-USD as the currencies are linked). Another place where the currency could be converted is at your US bank. You really don't get any control over that if it arrives as HKD and is then automatically converted into your USD. The rate and fees could be quite poor, especially if it is a minor US bank that has to deal with anther bank for foreign currency. For amounts of this size, it's worthwhile using a specialist currency conversion company instead. Currency Fair in Ireland is one. It's a peer-to-peer exchange that is generally the best deal (at least for the currency pairs I use). You wire the money to them, do the exchange on their site at a rate that is much closer to 0.5% from the midrate, then the money is transferred out by wire for a few dollars. Adds a few days to the process, but will possibly save you close to US$1000. Another established option is Currency Online in New Zealand. There are probably also specialist currency exchange companies in Hong Kong. The basic rule is, don't let the banks exchange currencies at rates that suit them, use a third party that offers a better rate and lower fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bcf037ef9312226087b3bd30dba8e63",
"text": "There is a service TransferWise through which you can send money from UK banks to EUR bank accounts in the EU for a 1 GBP fee (much cheaper then about 25 GBP for a SWIFT transfer). You send them a UK national GBP transfer to their UK HSBC account, and they send the equivalent amount in EUR from their Irish EUR bank account to your EUR account - for example in Germany. What is best, is that they use bare mid-market ForEx exchange rates, without any markup on the GBP to EUR exchange rate, which is usually in the range of 2% to 5% in banks, so you don't lose anything on the exchange rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ebc7fc2fe6982e3c3c583336b0bc7fb",
"text": "There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81df6a5235dad320c3fa1c7971100e9e",
"text": "\"No. Rural Scotland has exactly the same monetary system, and not the same bubble. Monaco (the other example given) doesn't even have its own monetary system but uses the Euro. Look instead to the common factor: a lot of demand for limited real estate. Turning towards the personal finance part of it, we know from experience that housing bubbles may \"\"burst\"\" and housing prices may drop suddenly by ~30%, sometimes more. This is a financial risk if you must sell. Yet on the other hand, the fundamental force that keeps prices in London higher than average isn't going away. The long-term risk often is manageable. A 30% drop isn't so bad if you own a house for 30 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89e762cfa1ea779ab51e8ebebce04405",
"text": "There contracts called an FX Forwards where you can get a feel for what the market thinks an exchange rate will be in the future. Now exchange rates are notoriously uncertain, but it is worth noting that at current prices market believes your Krona will be worth only 0.0003 Euro less three years from now than it is worth now. So, if you are considering taking money out of your investments and converting it to Euro and missing out on three years of dividends and hopefully capital gains its certainly possible this may work out for you but this is unlikely. If you are at all uncertain that you will actually move this is an even worse idea as paying to convert money twice would be an additional expense on top of the missed returns. There are FX financial products (futures and forwards) where you can get exposure to FX without having to put the full amount down. This could help hedge your house value but this can be extremely expensive over time for individual investors and would almost certainly not work in your favor. Something that could help reduce your risk a bit would be to invest more heavily in European even Irish (and British?) stocks which will move along with the currency and economy. You can lose some diversification doing this, but it can help a little.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39db91f9fd541757a56280308a6697b5",
"text": "Key point here is to remember that GBP isnt falling a lot, it has fallen a lot already. If you havent liquidated your position in pounds by now at a higher rate I would personally not bother switching to another currency right now. The pound is near its 10 year low(nearing 2008 capital 'C' Crisis levels) and despite what fear mongers may short the market for, the sun will shine after Brexit as well. Britain has a solid economy and that hasnt fundamentally changed, so even if the pound hasnt seen the absolute periodic lowest point yet(which may still come as brexit talks become more prevalent/near their end), it will eventually pull back up. In essence, you have more to lose acting in panic now than waiting to exchange for a better than today's rate at some point until the eventual Brexit(probably in March 2019) or at any point afterwards(if you wont be needing those savings when you move).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44b8a72d907e3394b395de649fd6c6d4",
"text": "\"If you \"\"have no immediate plans for the money and will probably not return to Switzerland for a long time or at all\"\" then it might be best just to exchange the money so then you can use/invest it in the UK. Maybe keep a bill or two for memory-sake - I do that whenever I travel to a foreign country.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1efb7090aedbe05bd825078862807e9",
"text": "It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92a7a528eaa4f83c37ae06739846b0d0",
"text": "In international transfers there are quite a few charges that come into picture. 1. Your Bank's charges, you mentioned its GBP 20. 2. The Fx conversion margin. So your GBP 317.90 became 500 AUD 3. The Charges of St. George's. Normally it is recovered from Beneficiary. Typically it would show up as 2 entries, one credit for AUD 500 and second a debit. Typically in the range of AUD 10 to 25. However incaes of return, St George will deduct 2 charges from AUD 500; - The Original Charges for transfer that it would have recovered from Beneficiary. - Additional Return charges, again in the range of AUD 10 to 20. Thus the amount they would have sent back to your Bank would be less than AUD 500. Your Bank would have converted and possibly again charged you a return fee. Since these are cross border payments there is no regulation and Bank are free to charge as they please and at time do charge excess. What you can do is disptue with the Bank on the points that; - The Beneficiary account was not closed, and its a deficiency of service. - Request for an itemized statement as to what was the amount returned by St George.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
89020fa9e77d2dd3ca0117be6f75b15b
|
Cheapest USD to GBP transfer
|
[
{
"docid": "dbb10172a87f97e2c6bcb5de0815d6b5",
"text": "Use a remitting service such as Ria Money Transfer. Almost all these services allow you to transfer upto $2999 at a time. So, you would be able to transfer the entire amount of $4500 within 2 business days(There is a monthly limit too, but it will definitely be more than $4500). There are no fees to use these services, but they do scrape off a bit on the currency rate. As of today you are getting 624 GBP for $1000 whereas the market rate is $641.95. You still save roughly $17 and 4 transactions, which adds up to more than $100. Here is a link to Ria's website. Other services, include Xoom, Western Union, Money Dart and Money Gram.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7402ad5fe06144d975d78da88844f93d",
"text": "If you are a Russian citizen a much easier and common solution would be a USD or EUR withdrawal from your Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. You will need to create a Webmoney account (www.webmoney.ru), get a primary certificate in your local Webmoney office in Russia (The list is available at the website), create WMZ (for USD) and WME (for EURO) accounts in Webmoney (done online). Then you can easily top up your Webmoney WMR (Rubles) account (created automatically) with Rubles, convert the sum into USD (According to the Webmoney rate, which is only slightly different from the official central bank rate) and then withdraw the money from your USD Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. The money will be transfered to your Cyprus bank account from UK Webmoney dealer. The transaction description would say that this sum is transfered according to the contract of sale of securities. This method prevents any Russian regulatory authorities from seeing your transactions. And the best thig in Webmoney is that they have stable exchange rates and they use classic currencies such as USD, RUR, EUR, etc. Webmoney also has WMG accounts (Gold) and WMX accounts (Bitcoin). Non-Russian residents can also open a Webmoney accounts. You can get one even in Cyprus, by the way:)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47ae96508ca08a01b1c2432172264fb7",
"text": "I just decided to start using GnuCash today, and I was also stuck in this position for around an hour before I figured out what to do exactly. The answer by @jldugger pointed me partially on the right track, so this answer is intended to help people waste less time in the future. (Note: All numbers have been redacted for privacy issues, but I hope the images are sufficient to allow you to understand what is going on. ) Upon successfully importing your transactions, you should be able to see your transactions in the Checking Account and Savings Account (plus additional accounts you have imported). The Imbalance account (GBP in my case) will be negative of whatever you have imported. This is due to the double-entry accounting system that GnuCash uses. Now, you will have to open your Savings Account. Note that except for a few transactions, most of them are going to Imbalance. These are marked out with the red rectangles. What you have to do, now, is to click on them individually and sort them into the correct account. Unfortunately (I do not understand why they did this), you cannot move multiple transactions at once. See also this thread. Fortunately, you only have to do this once. This is what your account should look like after it is complete. After this is done, you should not have to move any more accounts, since you can directly enter the transactions in the Transfer box. At this point, your Accounts tab should look like this: Question solved!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e128fedd7f4d35a22072d1b0e50533",
"text": "After doing this many times, my preferred method is: The reason being that the US banks will use every chance possible to take your money in fees. Usually the German bank website will tell you what the current exchange rate. You were correct in selecting Transfer in $ and got the exchange rate. In my experience if you transfer in Euros, the US bank at the other end, will take about 3-5%, because they can. Selecting OUR means that you only have the fee taken out by the Source bank. By doing shared, it looks like both banks took their full fee. If you chose OUR, I'm fairly certain you just would have paid the 1.50 and the 20. Chase would not have taken the 15.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af",
"text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "575209e45e0e9bd0338345afba9058eb",
"text": "\"I'd recommend an online FX broker like XE Trade at xe.com. There are no fees charged by XE other than the spread on the FX conversion itself (which you'll pay anywhere). They have payment clearing facilities in several countries (including UK BACS) so provided you're dealing with a major currency it should be possible to transfer money \"\"free\"\" (of wire charges at least). The FX spread will be much better than you would get from a bank (since FX is their primary business). The additional risk you take on is settlement risk. XE will not pay the sterling amount to your UK bank account until they have received the Euro payment into their account. If XE went bankrupt before crediting your UK account, but after you've paid them your Euros - you could lose your money. XE is backed by Custom House, which is a large and established Canadian firm - so this risk is very small indeed. There are other choices out there too, UKForex is another that comes to mind - although XE's rates have been the best of those I've tried.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef",
"text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d5612af7d495b352eeb63110fcfde9a",
"text": "He can send you a check. This will move the burden of GBP->USD conversion to him (unless the GBP amount is preset, then you'll be the one to pay for conversion either way). You can then deposit the USD check in any Israeli bank (they'll charge commission for the deposit and the USD->ILS conversion). Another, and from my experience significantly cheaper, option would be to wire transfer directly to your account. If you have a USD account and he'll transfer USD out - it will be almost at no cost to you, if you don't have a USD account check with your bank how to open it, or pay for USD->ILS conversion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eef52c6fb4e81d9bf9b71b4041321c19",
"text": "Probably the easiest to do is to do an international transfer via online banking. You will need to give your IBAN and BIC/SWIFT code of your bank to your friend, he should then be able to transfer the money from his bank. At least, I think they use IBAN in Israel as well. The money will be converted to the currency of your account. There are some fees, but they are not too big I think, and depending on the choice of transfer they can be paid by sender, shared, or by receiver. Contact your bank for precise details. Edit: if you really need to be paid in USD this may not be the best option though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6f3673e71cdfeb5998f0abfae96975d",
"text": "In general, to someone in a similar circumstance I might suggest that the lowest-risk option is to immediately convert your excess currency into the currency you will be spending. Note that 'risk' here refers only to the variance in possible outcomes. By converting to EUR now (assuming you are moving to an EU country using the EUR), you eliminate the chance that the GBP will weaken. But you also eliminate the chance that the GBP will strengthen. Thus, you have reduced the variance in possible outcomes so that you have a 'known' amount of EUR. To put money in a different currency than what you will be using is a form of investing, and it is one that can be considered high risk. Invest in a UK company while you plan on staying in the UK, and you take on the risk of stock ownership only. But invest in a German company while you plan on staying in the UK, you take on the risk of stock ownership + the risk of currency volatility. If you are prepared for this type of risk and understand it, you may want to take on this type of risk - but you really must understand what you're getting into before you do this. For most people, I think it's fair to say that fx investing is more accurately called gambling [See more comments on the risk of fx trading here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232]. However, this risk reduction only truly applies if you are certain that you will be moving to an EUR country. If you invest in EUR but then move to the US, you have not 'solved' your currency volatility problem, you have simply replaced your GBP risk with EUR risk. If you had your plane ticket in hand and nothing could stop you, then you know what your currency needs will be in 2 years. But if you have any doubt, then exchanging currency now may not be reducing your risk at all. What if you exchange for EUR today, and in a year you decide (for all the various reasons that circumstances in life may change) that you will stay in the UK after all. And during that time, what if the GBP strengthened again? You will have taken on risk unnecessarily. So, if you lack full confidence in your move, you may want to avoid fully trading your GBP today. Perhaps you could put away some amount every month into EUR (if you plan on moving to an EUR country), and leave some/most in GBP. This would not fully eliminate your currency risk if you move, but it would also not fully expose yourself to risk if you end up not moving. Just remember that doing this is not a guarantee that the EUR will strengthen and the GBP will weaken.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c75297b62f73553ec352cda7a9fff1b6",
"text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baaa0dc7d6d940f6aa51f2bc7297996e",
"text": "I did this for a few years and the best way I found was via http://xe.com/ It uses a bank transfer from your UK bank to xe.com (no fees from bank or xe). On the Canadian side, they use EFT (Electronic Fund Transfer, no fees from bank or xe.com) They have very competitive exchange rates. To make a transfer, you log in to xe and arrange your transfer. This locks in the rate and tells you how many GBP you need to transfer in. Then, transfer your money from the UK bank into xe using the details they provide. Two or three days later the money shows up in your Canadian acount. There's a bit of paperwork they need to set it up but it's not very hard. After it's set up, everything else is online. Enjoy!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fa6c81a8ef6708e1285d62e7d01d454",
"text": "\"The \"\"hidden\"\" fees in any transfer are usually: Foreign exchange transfer services are usually the cheapest option for sending money abroad when a conversion is involved. They tend to offer ways to get the money to or from them cheaply or for free and they typically offer low or no fees plus much better exchange rates than the alternatives. My preferred foreign exchange service is XE Trade. It looks like they support CAD to ZAR transfers so you might check them out. In my experience, they have not set a minimum on the amount I send although it does impact the exchange rate they will offer. The rate is still better than other alternatives available to me though. Note that for large enough transfers, the exchange rate difference will dominate all other costs. For example, if you transfer $10,000 and you pay $100 for the transfer plus $50 in wire fees ($150 in fees) but get a 2% better exchange rate than a \"\"free\"\" service, you would save $50 by choosing the non free service.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56f91d84f1a43125d0d28f4dd642bb6f",
"text": "Well, one way I avoid all exchange fees is to trade currency with an individual. There's no trick, though. Just find a friend or family member on the other side of the border who wants your USD or your CAD, look up the exchange rate for the day, and hand over the money (or write each other checks). It's win-win because both sides are getting a good deal with no fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfd87f95d5dc32ae3574eb5568be2f3c",
"text": "\"There isn't a single rate that works in both directions. There are two rates, one for each direction. So if $1 = 64.23 INR, you may find that 100 INR = $1.55. In fact, it's even worse than that. The \"\"rates\"\" are just the average values at which transactions occur. What happens in the real world is that someone (presumably your bank in this instance) offers to sell 100 INR for some amount, perhaps $1.56. Other traders may either accept this price or refuse to trade. If they refuse to trade, the bank may accept one of their offers, perhaps $1.55. Anyway, the answer to your question is that whomever does the actual conversion keeps the \"\"difference\"\". Of course, they may then lose that money if the value falls before they sell. More confusingly, either your bank or your friend's bank could do the conversion itself. Either or both could hold balances in various currencies so that they don't have to rely on the vagaries of the exchange market. This is called a money market account, and banks let their customers invest in them. It is a bit more likely to be your bank that gets the money than your friend's bank. Your friend's bank doesn't actually need to know that your account is in USD. They just transfer the amount in INR. It's your bank that has to convert that into USD to deposit in your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb9c7a2b4d3a134dcd6af5b51cad29cc",
"text": "I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily. That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there. (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged). I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com. I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know. They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c694b5c5fadf294f7e79081f9c0a8e91
|
what are the benefits of setting up an education trust fund for children?
|
[
{
"docid": "15aa1a1b87ea871acf62c3143aec5758",
"text": "Well, first off, if your children are NZ citizens, they can borrow money at 0% interest for tertiary education and I don't see any benefit to not taking free money. A saving account is your money, and will accrue a little bit of interest and you will pay tax on that. A family trust (I hope this is what you mean by trust fund) is a separate financial entity that can be set up to own assets for the benefit of multiple people. For example, if you have a rental property or business and you want the income divided between your children, rather than coming to you, or if you have a bach you want to keep in the family after you die.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "257b39ff066fa883fd2ac3d6524a037f",
"text": "A UTMA may or may not fit your situation. The main drawbacks to a UTMA account is that it will count against your child for financial aid (it counts as the child's asset). The second thing to consider is that taxes aren't deferred like in a 529 plan. The last problem of course is that when he turns 18 he gets control of the account and can spend the money on random junk (which may or may not be important to you). A 529 plan has a few advantages over a UTMA account. The grandparents can open the account with your son as the beneficiary and the money doesn't show up on financial aid for college (under current law which could change of course). Earnings grow tax free which will net you more total growth. You can also contribute substantially more without triggering the gift tax ~$60k. Also many states provide a state tax break for contributing to the state sponsored 529 plan. The account owner would be the grandparents so junior can't spend the money on teenage junk. The big downside to the 529 is the 10% penalty if the money isn't used for higher education. The flip side is that if the money is left for 20 years you will also have additional growth from the 20 years of tax free growth which may be a wash depending on your tax bracket and the tax rates in effect over those 20 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aea888d082dde7b0ae9ba723fe69f1ca",
"text": "\"given your time frame I'm not sure if investing in a 529 is your best option. If you're investing in a 529 you may have to deal with market volatility and the amount you invest over the course of three years could be worth less than what you had initially invested when it comes to your child's college education. The main idea of starting a plan like a 529 is the time-frame for your investments to grow. You also have the option of \"\"pre-paying\"\" your child's college, but that has restrictions. Most of the state sponsored pre-pay plans limit you to state schools if that wasn't obvious. Also, the current political situation is tricky, and may influence the cost of education in ~3-4 years, but I'm not sure this is the proper place for that discussion. Also, as far as the viability of these, it depends state-by-state. I live in Illinois and don't think I would count on a payout given our current financial situation. You could, however, look into paying tuition now for a state school and it will be risk free in terms of inflation, but again, it's hard to anticipate the political scope of this. They also have private pre-pay plans, but that would limit your child's university options just as the state pre-pay. Check out this investopedia article on 529 plans, it's basic but will give you a high level overview. Bankrate has an overview as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d2d210e7e748149b4035d17c0d8304b",
"text": "Trusts are useful for a number of situations, country-centric or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed0a834861a6e3accdc94feb5d815429",
"text": "If these are children that may be employed, in a few years, it may well be worth walking them through some basics of the deductions around employment, some basic taxes, uses of banks, and give them enough of a basis in how the economy of the world works. For example, if you get a job and get paid $10/hour, that may sound good but how much do various things eat at that so your take-home pay may be much lower? While this does presume that the kids will get jobs somewhere along the way and have to deal with this, it is worth making this part of the education system on some level rather than shocking them otherwise. Rather than focusing on calculations, I'd be more tempted to consider various scenarios like how do you use a bank, what makes insurance worth having(Life, health, car, and any others may be worth teaching on some level), and how does the government and taxes fit into things. While I may be swinging more for the practical, it is worth considering if these kids will be away in college or university in a few years, how will they handle being away from the parents that may supply the money to meet all the financial needs?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1772e385625c5a0d5bc135f86cef8cd",
"text": "At the very least I'd look closely at what you could get from the RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan). Depending on your income the government are quite generous with grants and bonds you can get over $11,000 of 'free' money if you qualify for everything CESG - Canada Education Savings Grant By applying for the CESG, up to $7,200 can be directly deposited by the Federal Government into your RESP. The Canada Education Savings Grant section offers information about eligibility requirements for the grant as well as how to use it when the beneficiary enrolls at a post-secondary institution. CLB - Canada Learning Bond CLB is available to children born after December 31st, 2003 if an RESP has been opened on their behalf. Browse the Canada Learning Bond section to find out who is eligible, how to apply, and how much the Government of Canada will contribute to your RESP. I can recomend the TD e-series funds as a low cost way of getting stock market exposure in your RESP So if I were you... As an example if you earn $40k and you pay in the minimum amount to get all the grants ($500/year, $42/month) assuming zero growth you'll have almost $14k of which $5.4k would have been given to you buy the government, if you can afford to save $200/month you'll get over $11,000 from the government",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb1a6886a0414d71c3b50c1163c6222c",
"text": "I think you have already outlined for yourself most of the pros and cons of each method of giving. It sounds to me like you have some desire to control how the money is spent, or at least reserve the right not to give it to a child who will waste it (according to your definition). If you set up an UTMA/UGMA account, or just give the money directly each year as a birthday gift, you are surrendering control of the money. It's a gift and is no longer yours to direct. If you set up a 529, you at least restrict the money to a particular, useful purpose. Moreover, if you retain ownership of the 529, you can take the money back, albeit with a tax penalty to yourself. If you do hold a 529 in your name, but for a child's benefit, there are a couple of things to consider with respect to future financial aid (this is from recent experience--my in-laws have 529s for our children, both of whom are currently in college). A 529 not owned by the student or the student's parent is not reported as an asset (of the child or the parent) on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). However, once such a 529 is used to pay college expenses, the amount of those payments does get reported on the following year's FAFSA, and counts as untaxed income for the purposes of figuring the Expected Family Contribution (EFC). Untaxed income is assessed towards the EFC at 50%. In contrast, parental assets are assessed at around 7%, if I recall correctly, and student assets at around 35%. Student-owned 529s are assessed at the rate of parental assets, which is an advantage. If the amount you will set aside is less than the cost of one year of college, you can avoid the disadvantage of the untaxed income assessment by just using the entire 529 for the final year of school, since there will be no FAFSA for the following year. It occurs to me that there is one other way you can give to them that you did not mention, and may make you more comfortable in terms of encouraging some positive behavior. Namely, save the money in a self-owned account, then, when they are old enough to get a job that provides a W-2 showing declared, earned income, you can use the savings to fund a Traditional or Roth IRA for them, up to the limit allowed each year, until the money you set aside is exhausted. The Roth is a better long-term savings vehicle, but the Traditional would carry bigger penalties for early withdrawal and would therefore be less tempting to draw on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "701bdcfae7c89d8354151051c10d5239",
"text": "IANAL, nor am I a financial professional. However, I've just looked into this because of a relative's death, and I have minor children. I am in the US. First, a named beneficiary on many accounts means that any proceeds are kept out of the estate and do not have to go through probate. That usually means that they're available much more quickly. Second, a beneficiary statement trumps a will. The account may pay out long before a will is even filed with the probate court. Third, you can name a trust as the beneficiary. In this case, because you want to make sure the money goes to your children, that's likely your best option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f66b45bbd4eac23510e19e9dbe422029",
"text": "Pro: - Faces less redemption pressure and hence the Fund Manager can focus more on long term gains rather than immediate gains. - Works well in emerging markets. - Less churn out in case the market falls sharply, there by making more money in long run. Cons: - No additional money to invest/take advantage of market situation. - Less liquid for investor as he is locked in for a period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e072d360a7c83613e174f8ea6d56d93",
"text": "A Junior ISA might be one option if you are eligible do you have a CTF? (child trust fund) though the rules are changing shortly to allow those with CTF's to move to a junior ISA. JISA are yielding about 3.5% at the moment Or as you are so young you could invest in one or two of the big Generalist Investment trusts (Wittan, Lowland) - you might need an adult open this and it would be held via a trust for you. Or thinking really far ahead you could start a pension with say 50% of the lumpsum",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9247ac42cea1b677ef3ad6d03ff47937",
"text": "A fourteen-year-old can invest a few thousand into commuting to a part-time job or an education. If you can wait five years for a couple hundred you can wait two to four years for a car (or gas money) or a class (or some textbooks.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4937d5b68a0d1816b7b81ca9fbd721cb",
"text": "First of all kudos to you for seeing the value in saving at a young age. There are several different things you can mean by this and I'm not sure which is accurate so I am going to address the first two that I thought of. If you are selling your investments because you need the money (emergency expenses, saved enough for a short term goal, whatever the reason) then this may not be the best solution for your savings. Investing in mutual funds, ETFs, stocks, 401k, IRA, etc are typically for longer term goals such as a goal that is 10+ years away (maybe buying a home, paying for college for your children, retirement, etc). If you are selling your investments because you believe that another investment is performing better and you want to get in on that one instead what I would suggest is leaving the money you have invested where it is and starting future investments in the new fund/ETF you are interested in. For example if you have $2000 invested in fund X and now you do some research and fund Q looks more appealing that is great, start investing in fund Q with your next deposit. Any research you do will be based on past results, there is nothing that guarantees that fund Q will continue doing better than the fund X you already have. Trying to time the market rarely ends well for the investor. I would encourage you to continue saving money a bit at a time just like you have been doing. Avoid selling your investments until it is time to sell them for whatever goal you intended them for. Set aside some cash to cover any unexpected expenses so you won't have to sell your investments to cover the costs, even at 18 unplanned things happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39759f3a694b4c798f6717f6d8314396",
"text": "\"This is a tricky question, because the financial aid system can create odd incentives. Good schools tend to price themselves above and beyond any reasonable middle-class ability to save and then offer financial aid, much of it in the form of internal \"\"grants\"\" or \"\"loans\"\". If you think about it, the internal grant is more of a discount than a grant since no money need have ever existed to \"\"fund\"\" the grant. The actual price to the parents is based on financial aid paperwork and related rules, perhaps forming a college price-setting cartel. It is these rules that need to be considered when creating a savings plan. Suppose it is $50k/year to send your kids to the best school admitting them. Thats $200k for the 4 years. Suppose you had $50k now to save instead of $10K, and are wondering whether to put it in your son's college savings (whether or not you can do so in a tax advantaged way) or to pay down the mortgage. If you put it in your kids savings, and the $50k becomes $75k over time, that $75k will be used up in a year and a half as the financial aid system will suck it dry first before offering you much help. On the other hand, if you put the $50k on paying down the mortgage [provided the mortgage is \"\"healthy\"\" not upside down], your house payment will still be the same when your kids go to college. The financial aid calculations will consider that the kid has no savings, and allocate a \"\"grant\"\" and some loans the first year and a parental portion that you might be able to tap with a home equity loan or work overtime. Generally, you should also be encouraging your kids to excel and perhaps obtain academic scholarships or at least obtain some great opportunities. A large college savings fund might be as counterproductive as a zero fund. They shouldn't be expecting to breeze through some party school with a nice pad and car, homework assistance, and beer money. Unless they are good at a sport, like maybe football -- in which case you won't need to be the provider. It is not obvious how much the optimal ESA amount is. It might not be $0. Saving like crazy in there probably isn't the best thing to do, either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da1e13cc16995fd619ac06c8030c84d",
"text": "Absolutely this. Encouraging education is good. Encouraging education by offering private institutions blank checks someone else (the student) is responsible for paying down is bad. At this point, regulate the price of college tuition, and make federal student loans federal student grants.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7d40b71488cb83dad50f64980f559a9",
"text": "\"I'd also look into index funds (eg Vanguard) as they have low management fees. you can buy these as ETFs as well - so you can buy in at a very low starting amount. An index fund can also be a talking point for your kids about what an industry index is and how it relates to the companies that fall into it. Also about how mutual funds try to \"\"beat the market\"\" - and often fail.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaab9bd2b0cb3f917a3cf78a945a3545",
"text": "Our Website : http://www.inglewoodarena.com/ The Forum loves children, but asks that you check the age minimum on the event you are attending prior to buying tickets. If children are allowed, those under two attend for free but must remain on a ticket-holders lap. Any strollers must be collapsible and stored beneath seat. Service Pets are happily accepted but must remain in the seating area with their human, harnessed or leashed. The Forum Inglewood strongly encourages Animal Access card photo IDs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3f808afebf338cf23d83fe8756e14b89
|
devastated with our retirement money that we have left
|
[
{
"docid": "df4eb1f3883678b9cb8397aa325b41e2",
"text": "\"I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market? You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return. This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight. Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - \"\"annuities are sold, not bought\"\") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you. At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you. Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it. Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio. (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f87277f1ece0ff496c692790105c99d",
"text": "\"It sounds like the kinds of planners you're talking to might be a poor fit, because they are essentially salespersons selling investments for a commission. Some thoughts on finding a financial planner The good kind of financial planner is going to be able to do a comprehensive plan - look at your whole life, goals, and non-investment issues such as insurance. You should expect to get a document with a Monte Carlo simulation showing your odds of success if you stick to the plan; for investments, you should expect to see a recommended asset allocation and an emphasis on low-cost no-commission (commission is \"\"load\"\") funds. See some of the other questions from past posts, for example What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? A good place to start for a planner might be http://napfa.org ; there's also a franchise of planners providing hourly advice called the Garrett Planning Network, I helped my mom hire someone from them and she was very happy, though I do think your results would depend mostly on the individual rather than the franchise. Anyway see http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com/map.html , they do require planners to be fee-only and working on their CFP credential. You should really look for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) credential. There are a lot of credentials out there, but many of them mean very little, and others might be hard to get but not mean the right thing. Some other meaningful ones include Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) which would be a solid investment expert, though not necessarily someone knowledgeable in financial planning generally; and IRS Enrolled Agent, which means someone who knows a lot about taxes. A CPA (accountant) would also be pretty meaningful. A law degree (and estate law know-how) is very relevant to many planning situations, too. Some not-very-meaningful certifications include Certified Mutual Fund Specialist (which isn't bogus, but it's much easier to get than CFP or CFA); Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) which mostly means the person is supposed to understand securities fraud laws, but doesn't mean they know a lot about financial planning. There are some pretty bogus certifications out there, many have \"\"retirement\"\" or \"\"senior\"\" in the name. A good question for any planner is \"\"Are you a fiduciary?\"\" which means are they legally required to act in your interests and not their own. Most sales-oriented advisors are not fiduciaries; they wouldn't charge you a big sales commission if they were, and they are not \"\"on your side\"\" legally speaking. It's a good idea to check with your state regulators or the SEC to confirm that your advisor is registered and ask if they have had any complaints. (Small advisors usually register with the state and larger ones with the federal SEC). If they are registered, they may still be a salesperson who isn't acting in your interests, but at least they are following the law. You can also see if they've been in trouble in the past. When looking for a planner, one firm I found had a professional looking web site and didn't seem sketchy at all, but the state said they were not properly registered and not in compliance. Other ideas A good book is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 it's very approachable and you'd feel more confident talking to someone maybe with more background information. For companies to work with, stick to the ones that are very consumer-friendly and sell no-load funds. Vanguard is probably the one you'll hear about most. But T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, USAA are some other good names. Fidelity is a bit of a mixture, with some cheap consumer-friendly investments and other products that are less so. Avoid companies that are all about charging commission: pretty much anyone selling an annuity is probably bad news. Annuities have some valid uses but mostly they are a bad deal. Not knowing your specific situation in any detail, it's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. It's virtually certain that any planner who is for real, and not a ripoff salesperson, will talk a lot about how much you need to save and so forth, not just about choosing investments. Don't be afraid to pay for a planner. It's well worth it to pay someone a thousand dollars for a really thorough, fiduciary plan with your interests foremost. The \"\"free\"\" planners who get a commission are going to get a whole lot more than a thousand dollars out of you, even though you won't write a check directly. Be sure to convert those mutual fund expense ratios and sales commissions into actual dollar amounts! To summarize: find someone you're paying, not someone getting a commission; look for that CFP credential showing they passed a demanding exam; maybe read a quick and easy book like the one I mentioned just so you know what the advisor is talking about; and don't rush into anything! And btw, I think you ought to be fine with a solid plan. You and your husband have time remaining to work with. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d66e0f274114c436b814fbccf05830c",
"text": "I'll be blunt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee9dd9059baeca33306de0ce321cb4f0",
"text": "When you say: I am 48 and my husband is 54. We have approx. 60,000.00 left in our retirement accounts. We want to move our money into something so our money will grow. We've been looking at annunities. We've talked to 4 different advisors about what is best for us. Bad mistake, I am so overwhelmed with the differences they all have til I can't even think straight anymore. @Havoc P is correct: ...It's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. TL; DR Here is my advice:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "def7992252bc336497613522b12cab31",
"text": "The answers you've received already are very good. I truly sympathize with your situation. In general, it makes sense to try to build off of existing relationships. Here are a few ideas: I don't know if you work for a small or large company, or local/state government. But if there is any kind of retirement planning through your workplace, make sure to investigate that. Those people are usually already paid something for their services by your employer, so they should have less of an interest in making money off you directly. One more thought: A no-fee brokerage company e.g. Charles Schwab. They offer a free one hour phone call with an investment adviser if you invest at least $25K. I personally had very good experiences with them. This answer may be too anecdotal and not specifically address the annuity dilemma you mentioned. That annunity dilemma is why you need to find someone you can trust, who is competent (see the credentials for financial advisers mentioned in the other answers), and will work the numbers out with you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29e636684fa9bb971dfbff84f853c3b7",
"text": "Get a job, if you don't have one right now. Take deductions from your paycheck for an IRA or 401K if the company has one.",
"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": "71a0a28fb5c7847f3ffd5fdab87d2b59",
"text": "> At $31 billion, GE’s pension shortfall is the biggest among S&P 500 companies and 50 percent greater than any other corporation in the U.S. It’s a deficit that has swelled in recent years as Immelt spent more than $45 billion on share buybacks to win over Wall Street and pacify activists like Nelson Peltz. > > Part of it has to do with the paltry returns that have plagued pensions across corporate America as ultralow interest rates prevailed in the aftermath of the financial crisis. But perhaps more importantly, GE’s dilemma underscores deeper concerns about modern capitalism’s all-consuming focus on immediate results, which some suggest is short-sighted and could ultimately leave everyone -- including shareholders themselves -- worse off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2154894e784fa76977d182c90058d00e",
"text": "Well this is not the best situation. Sorry to your friend. First off ROTHs are out, you need earned income. Secondly, I don't think the focus should be on retirement planning until there is again an earned income. Thirdly, this person is just in a bad spot. Lets assume that you can find some really good mutual funds, that consistently return 10% per year. At best this person can only pull out 10K per year without touching principle. At that income level, taxes are not much of a concern; not as much as surviving. If this person knows anything about investing, they know funds don't work like this. They could be down 5%, down 5%, up ~40% in three years to give an average of 10% return. Which of course further complicates matters. This person (IMO) should seek to start a different career. One that can cater to any long term issues this person has with pain/disability. The money could be used toward training/education in order to get money flowing again. That is not to say the full amount should be used for a BA in Russian Folk Literature, but some minimum training to get a career that starts earning real money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0994d1ec45dc7b1639e3b353e740fc7",
"text": "Don't forget job. That's one of the things people in the lower classes lost. I was trying to figure out why there weren't mass firings at trading and accounting firms until the numbers started popping up. They had basically just liquidated what they had, bought at lower numbers, and are now reaping the profits. Too bad most people earning under $250k a year can't do that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74c020c4969af53f64ab7f5211d86b49",
"text": "\"The gross liabilities (benefit obligation) will still be there, regardless. They are *future* benefits. Sure, you can increase funding to the plan to eliminate the *net* pension liability, but why? The new assets would earn very little. The shortfall is not an excessively large risk. The only reason seems to be the \"\"all-consuming focus on immediate results\"\" which is more rhetoric than reality in this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd3db7ba67b69b0a6bb9b5ed64bdbf5b",
"text": "I am sorry for your loss, this person blessed you greatly. For now I would put it in a savings account. I'd use a high yield account like EverBank or Personal Savings from Amex. There are others it is pretty easy to do your own research. Expect to earn around 2200 if you keep it there a year. As you grieve, I'd ask myself what this person would want me to do with the money. I'd arrive at a plan that involved me investing some, giving some, and spending some. I have a feeling, knowing that you have done pretty well for yourself financially, that this person would want you to spend some money on yourself. It is important to honor their memory. Giving is an important part of building wealth, and so is investing. Perhaps you can give/purchase a bench or part of a walkway at one of your favorite locations like a zoo. This will help you remember this person fondly. For the investing part, I would recommend contacting a company like Fidelity or Vanguard. The can guide you into mutual funds that suit your needs and will help you understand the workings of them. As far as Fidelity, they will tend to guide you toward their company funds, but they are no load. Once you learn how to use the website, it is pretty easy to pick your own funds. And always, you can come back here with more questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "648dc0f65d1f823e09181327ef4871ea",
"text": "I'm not sure I'd say the assets they had were worthless. One of the big controversies was whether it was a solvency crisis (bad assets) or a liquidity crisis (fine assets, but if everyone sells illiquid assets there's a fire sale problem). The US and Buffett bet it was a liquidity crisis, and they were proven right.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc1cf169ab94c3ca2ec2792758e84bb9",
"text": "Uhh ... Not really. There was a bank run, it just wasn't on deposits. We are only staving off depression by taxing future dollars ... That policy will probably fail eventually and if we haven't gained enough aggregate hard inputs (people or technology) by the time this delaying tactic runs out then it will be depression. You really misread my comment anyway. Move all insured deposits to not for profit credit unions and sever them completely from investment/commercial banking. Remove all deposit insurance from commercial/investment banking and with it the inherent moral hazard imbedded in the system. We still have insured deposits but for profit banks won't be able to filter them through to investment banking through the shadow banking system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "271e35b038f0d575c15530850df63d08",
"text": "Well, if they were lemons, the value is significantly less than what GS sold them to the government for. What is more sad is that Fannie and Freddie are going to get made whole and we are going to pretend like their incompetence and lack of due diligence never happened. Back to business as usual, until the next time the hacks at these government agencies get burned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f01516ef052e1c21bf289ad223b08b6a",
"text": "> I no longer have the fantasy belief that I can do better managing my money than professional investors The pension fund probably lost about as much as your investments did, but they still had to pay out as if they were meeting their targets. I understand you weren't really offered a choice between a higher salary or a pension, so my observation is academic, but to me it just seems strange to believe that a company can pay you a fixed sum of money 30 years in the future. Maybe it's just a generational thing but the whole idea of investing (figuratively) your entire future in a single company doesn't make sense to me. I actually think it's good in the long run that we're moving away from the work at one company your entire life model. Companies shouldn't be in the business of providing retirement benefits any more than they should healthcare plans, IMO.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a967f815ea0304abde07362df5bba0f4",
"text": "\"The abysmal stats on personal savings concern me the most. When push comes to shove, these people will vote to steal from those of us who made wise financial decisions and were responsible savers. Forced draw downs of 401k's before retirement age? Taxation on internal gains in retirement plans? \"\"Wealth\"\" taxes on retirement balances? It's coming in some form or another. Stay vigilant!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c13af654934bc577fa0bd825f6a33460",
"text": "\"Since your question was first posted, I happened to watch PBS FRONTLINE's The Retirement Gamble, about \"\"America's Retirement Crisis\"\" and the retirement industry. You can watch the entire episode online at the previous link, and it's also available on DVD. Here's a link to the episode transcript. Here's a partial blurb from a post at PBS that announced the episode: If you’ve been watching any commercial television lately, you are well aware that the financial services industry is very busy running expensive ads imploring us to worry about our retirement futures. Open a new account today, they say. They are not wrong that we should be doing something: America is facing a retirement crisis. One in three Americans has no retirement savings at all. One in two reports that they can’t save enough. On top of that, we are living longer, and health care costs, as we all know, are increasing. But, as I found when investigating the retirement planning and mutual funds industries in The Retirement Gamble, which airs tonight on FRONTLINE, those advertisements are imploring us to start saving for one simple reason. Retirement is big business — and very profitable. (... more... ) There's another related PBS FRONTLINE documentary from back in 2006, Can You Afford To Retire? You'll find a link on that page to watch the program online. Finally, I'm also aware of but haven't yet seen a new documentary called Broken Eggs: The Looming Retirement Crisis in America. Looks like it isn't available for online streaming or on DVD yet, but I expect it would be, eventually.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "590410dbf3bc7cecced45bb305aba857",
"text": "I was also going to mention people going through savings during unemployment. And given the unemployment figures, 28% having no emergency savings even seems low. Purely anecdotal but I cleared through my savings a few years ago during seven months of unemployment and have several friends who did the same and/or racked up thousands in debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24ce1d080d8142a55975f5ea1e071e6d",
"text": "\"I can see why you are feeling financial stress. If I understand right you have put yourself in a very uncomfortable and unsustainable situation and one that should indeed be very stressful for a person of your age. I feel a lot of stress just reading over your question. I'm going to be very frank. Your financial situation suggests that you have very aggressively taken wealth from your future self in order to consume and to make inefficient investments. Well, look in the mirror and say to yourself \"\"I am now my future self and it is time to pay for my past decisions.\"\" Don't take money out of your IRA. That would be continuing the behavior as it is a very inefficient use of your resources that will lead to yet more extreme poverty down the line. Ok, you can't take back what you have done in the past. What to do now? Major life restructuring. If I were you, I'd sell my house if I had one. Move in with one of your kids if you have any nearby. If not, move into the cheapest trailer you can find. Take a second job. Very seriously look to see if you can get a job that pays more for your primary job--I know you love your current job but you simply cannot continue as you are now. Start eating really cheap food and buying clothes at thrift stores. Throw everything you can at your debts, starting with the ones with the highest interest rate. Plan now to continue working long after your peers have retired. Early in life is the time to be borrowing. Middle age is when you should be finishing paying off any remaining debts and tucking away like crazy for retirement. Now is not an OK time to be taking on additional debt to fund consumption. I know changing your life is going to be very uncomfortable, but I think you will find that there is more peace of mind in having some amount of financial security (which for you will require a LOT of changes) than in borrowing ever more to fund a lifestyle you cannot sustain.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "692579e2c78ec184eabeb8f9581d99b8",
"text": "Yes, I think this is the general idea. We're going through a deleveraging. On the one hand, this isn't entirely a bad thing because the financial crisis showed some people were lending irresponsibly. A lot of bad loans were made and bad loans that don't get repaid cause a lot of havoc. One the down side, like the original poster said this makes it seem like money is drying up. This has been a bigger problem in some places than other. A lot would argue, myself included, that the US has deleveraged relatively--and key word is relatively--smoothly. Other places, like Europe have not been so lucky.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b004e8f6c250759e152884ec241164a7
|
Estate taxes and the top 1 percent by net worth
|
[
{
"docid": "cd8357d402dd8084d8d89d0fc81cd792",
"text": "Of course, you've already realized that some of that is that smaller estates are more common than larger estates. But it seems unlikely that there are four times as many estates between $10 and $11 million as above that range. People who expect to die with an estate subject to inheritance tax tend to prepare. I don't know how common it is, but if the surviving member of a couple remarries, then the new spouse gets a separate exemption. And of course spouses inherit from spouses without tax. In theory this could last indefinitely. In practice, it is less likely. But if a married couple has $20 million, the first spouse could leave $15 million to the second and $5 million to other heirs. The second spouse could leave $10 million to a third spouse (after remarrying) and another $5 million to children with the first spouse. All without triggering the estate tax. People can put some of their estate into a trust. This can allow the heirs to continue to control the money while not paying inheritance tax. Supposedly Ford (of Ford Motor Company) took that route. Another common strategy is to give the maximum without gift tax each year. That's at least $14k per donor and recipient per year. So a married couple with two kids can transfer $56k per year. Plus $56k for the kids' spouses. And if there are four grandchildren, that's another $112k. Great-grandchildren count too. That's more than a million every five years. So given ten years to prepare, parents can transfer $2 million out of the estate and to the heirs without tax. Consider the case of two wealthy siblings. They've each maxed out their gifts to their own heirs. So they agree to max out their gifts to their sibling's heirs. This effectively doubles the transfer amount without tax implication. Also realize that they can pretransfer assets at the current market rate. So if a rich person has an asset that is currently undervalued, it may make sense to transfer it immediately as a gift. This will use up some of the estate exemption. But if you're going to transfer the asset eventually, you might as well do so when the value is optimal for your purpose. These are just the easy things to do. If someone wants, they can do more complicated things that make it harder for the IRS to track value. For example, the Bezos family invested in Amazon.com when Jeff Bezos was starting it. As a result, his company could survive capital losses that another company might not. The effect of this was to make him fabulously rich and his parents richer than they were. But he won't pay inheritance tax until his parents actually transfer the estate to him (and I believe they actually put it in a charitable trust). If his company had failed instead, he still would have been supported by the capital provided by his parents while it was open (e.g. his salary). But he wouldn't have paid inheritance tax on it. There are other examples of the same pattern: Fred Smith of FedEx; Donald Trump; Bill Gates of Microsoft; etc. The prime value of the estate was not in its transfer, but in working together while alive or through a family trust. The child's company became much more valuable as a result of a parent's wealth. And in two of those examples, the child was so successful that the parent became richer as a result. So the parent's estate does count. Meanwhile, another company might fail, leaving the estate below the threshold despite a great deal of parental support. And those aren't even fiddles. Those children started real companies and offered their parents real investment opportunities. A family that wants to do so can do a lot more with arrangements. Of course, the IRS may be looking for some of them. The point being that the estate might be more than $11 million earlier, but the parents can find ways to reduce it below the inheritance tax exemption by the time that they die.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b309d8497110987412f3ebce00f7f42f",
"text": "There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars. These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58855f1783e2b031601dca2b3e9a29fc",
"text": "There are two key reasons: Consider a family of four, two kids and two adults, that has a net worth of $20 million. Each of these four people live in a top 1% household. But any of those four people can die, and their estate will not pay any estate tax. Both kids and one spouse can die, and still no estate tax will be paid. Only when the last spouse dies would there be any estate tax. Also, consider a person who dies but whose assets do not flow into their estate. For example, their assets could be held in an inter-vivos trust. People with higher net worths are much more likely to use trusts to avoid or minimize estate taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa07528615abdd6a4fcf39b4ec776522",
"text": "Data is a funny thing. There are many different ways of constructing data sets. Keep in mind, the cite you linked is fine, I follow this kind of site when I am data mining. They got their data from the Government, and there's no reason to doubt its validity. Keep in mind, it's a survey. They extrapolate from a survey of a small population - In the 2016 survey, 6,254 families were interviewed, and in the 2013 survey, 6,026 were interviewed. 1) Let's set that aside, and look at the numbers as if they were gospel. $10.37M net worth to be top 1%. That's people at all different ages, and not the wealth cutoff for those dying, else the estate tax would hit closer to the 1%. Given the limited data set, I'd only hypothesize, if we graphed the age (along the bottom, X axis) vs number of people, the curve would peek in mid to late 60's, as people retire. With 20 years for the couple to spend and gift, it's not tough to imagine that by the time they pass away, the taxable estate $11M couple falls to just .2%. 2) When the estate tax impacted estates over just $600K, and my daughter was born, we set up a trust. Out net worth was barely positive, but insurance alone would have created enough wealth to have our orphaned child be subject to the tax of our estate before she received a dime. We also used the trust to fund her college. As a completed gift, had we made some bad decisions and lost it all, at least that money would be protected. Keep in mind, there are different flavors of trusts, but it's safe to say that in a survey to collect data, the million dollar+ trusts are considered family wealth. Not tough to imagine a good fraction of those families over $10M have a nice chunk already protected this way. 3) Last - For any illiquid assets, there's a discount that gets applied, typically 30%. I own a ranch, and want to start gifting it to the kids, the process involves creating stock, with restrictions, as a way to transfer the fractions required to gift the $14K/yr per person combination. (That is, a couple can gift 14x4 = $56K to a child with a spouse. 4 kids, all married, and the gifting is $224K/yr, $320K at full valuation. Again, these gifts may be to irrevocable trusts, and still thought of as their wealth.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4aa71bc5470147597db83be59cdb3e56",
"text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4fa325f676d104d2e0616422b951ff6",
"text": "It is the most incorrect piece of the article, but it's not the lack of taxes that have allowed the wealthy to do better than the rest of us. You can argue for the seizure of their assets by the gov't - through taxes - as a way to take it from them. But the Fed's monetary policies are far more severe in how they impact inequality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6177247a1ac13044890876a8fafc0a23",
"text": "Here's how the CBO says the top 1% get their income: Source|% from source :--------|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries|33.4% Business Income|23.2% Capital Gains|19.1% Capital Income|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital|7.3% Other Income|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance|0.5%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee13d471d6a4de0b7fb093a6e1334ae9",
"text": "\"Well I'd say they are expected to pay much more than what you describe. What you've described is called \"\"flat\"\" tax and is widely considered unacceptable (meaning the rich wouldn't pay enough). Today, as codified in progressive tax tables, the rich are certainly *expected* to pay much *more* than a flat tax as you describe. Beyond the natural scaling you get with a percentage, the percentage itself goes up as you make more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "814cb498ebdb318b3b26331502051b3a",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/top-1-of-households-in-uk-fully-recovered-from-financial-crisis) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > New research from the Resolution Foundation showed that households with incomes of &pound;275,000 or more quickly recovered from the impact of the deep recession and have seen their share of national income return to the level seen before the global banking system froze up in the summer of 2007. > &quot;Adam Corlett, senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said:&quot;The incomes of the top 1% took a short, sharp hit following the financial crisis. > The share of national disposable income for the richest 1% of households rose steadily after Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979 and reached a peak of 8.5% on the eve of the financial crisis. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6njstj/top_1_of_households_in_uk_fully_recovered_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~167774 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 **year**^#2 **election**^#3 **Foundation**^#4 **standards**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f04a63bace0b07f39e3568065d4022d7",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/994323/economists-say-the-ultra-wealthy-dodging-taxes-far-more-than-we-think/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Economists Annette Alstads&aelig;ter, Niels Johannesen, and Gabriel Zucman have taken the data from the two leaks and combined them with unusually detailed income and wealth records in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark to estimate the size and scope of tax evasion. > The economists&#039; surprising finding: The top.01% of the wealthy in these countries evades about 30% of their respective personal income and taxes, compared to the average evasion rate of 3%. These findings complicate two arguments commonly made by defenders of the status quo: One, that tax evasion is a relatively uncommon practice among the very wealthy highlighted by extreme cases, and two, that tax evasion among lower-income earners-working under the table or failing to declare tips, for example-is more pernicious than the use of offshore banks. > The researchers think that the results will likely show more tax evasion among the ultra-wealthy in more unequal countries, like the United States. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6etje2/economists_say_panama_papers_and_swiss_leaks_show/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~134702 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **evasion**^#2 **wealthy**^#3 **wealth**^#4 **super**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc7edd99a53e359a1c34b75cc8cbc63e",
"text": "> 73% of Americans were in the ‘top 20%’ for at least a year Well, sure. [The top 20% currently begins at $92,000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States). All an American needs to do to qualify for that 73% is sell their house with ~50% equity at some point in their life since the IRS considers that income. Great logic of this article: liquidate your primary investment and \\*poof\\* you're wealthy. Even [the authors of the study cited in this article say](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/01/hirschl-research-finds-many-join-1-percent-few-stay-long): *“It would be misguided to presume that top-level income attainment is solely a function of hard work, diligence and equality of opportunity,” they write. “A more nuanced interpretation includes the proposition that access to top-level income is influenced by historic patterns of race and class inequality.”*",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c0bd52e79978f8c6e0af02469a87a93",
"text": "\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c83108ac8af92e0912975e456bd3c5dd",
"text": "Maryland is one of only two states (as of the writing of that article) that collects both inheritance tax and estate tax. These are two different issues, and it's important to differentiate between them sufficiently. I can't provide you a definitive answer, so consult a tax professional in Maryland for specific details to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. This blog has a nice summary of the differences, as of 2012: The estate tax is assessable if more than one million dollars passes at death. The total dollar value of the property determines whether there is an estate tax. The inheritance tax is not dependent upon the value of the estate, as even very small estates can have inheritance tax imposed. Inheritance tax is assessed on property given to a person who is further removed in relationship than a sibling. Thus, for example, a 10% tax will be assessed on property passing to a cousin, niece, nephew or friend. Another section of the page states, as an example: If you give someone $10,000 in cash, the inheritance tax will simply reduce the amount inherited – in this case to $9,000. There are several other exemptions to the inheritance tax in addition to the immediate family exception discussed above: Property that passes from a decedent to or for the use of a grandparent, parent, spouse, child or other lineal descendant, spouse of a child or other lineal descendant, stepparent, stepchild, brother or sister of the decedent, or a corporation if all of its stockholders consist of the surviving spouse, parents, stepparents, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, and lineal descendants of the decedent and spouses of the lineal descendants. Putting this information together makes me think that the inheritance wouldn't be taxable in your case because it's a cash inheritance from an immediate family member, so it qualifies for one of the exemptions. Since I'm not a tax professional, however, I can't say that for sure. Hopefully these pages will give you enough of a foundation for when you talk to a professional.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5bbbf00ed8e7b0c39a7ece90572ef56",
"text": "I know that if you make more, you pay more, but do those who have more, not make more, pay higher income tax? In general, no. In most locales, income tax is based on income, not on wealth. I am retired. I have little income but a fair amount of wealth. I play very little income tax. (But I do pay other kinds of taxes.) Here's a scenario. 2 people of average wealth with similar situations have the same job with equal pay. After 5 years, their situations haven't changed and they still earn equal pay, but now one has $40,000 in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because he makes the same? In most locales, you pay income tax on everything that is counted as income. Your salary is income. In some cases, earned interest is income. But aside from the earned interest from your bank accounts, neither the $40,000 nor the $9,000 is income. Your huge mansion isn't income. Your expensive car isn't income. The huge amount of land you own isn't income. The pricey artwork on your walls isn't income. You don't pay income tax on any of these, but your local may impose other taxes on these (such as property tax, etc.) [Note: consult the tax laws of your specific locale if you want to know details.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a292e86a29e93f809f8d96cd651970a1",
"text": "Fact check: not true. Their **median** net worth dropped 39 percent from 2007 to 2010 while their **mean** net worth, which is what the title of this post implies, went down 14.7 percent over the same period. Other things worth noting: the 2007 net worth values were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-RS) and were based on the interviews of 6492 families in 2010 and 4421 in 2007. Here's the [source article from the Fed [PDF Warning]](http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/PDF/scf12.pdf).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1808c6c81d6b04a809ec7841876cc6a4",
"text": "I think you are thinking too hard about this. If a billionaire's assets increase 70% in the stock market, he created $700M in new wealth. If 300 people each create a million dollars in new wealth. We have 300 new millionaires creating 300M in wealth, but still 70% of wealth among the 301 people was created by the billionaire. 300 new millionaires is still a good thing, no matter what you think about how to tax a billionaire's assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05106f27e856cd2f6b5bd98a7903936f",
"text": "Net worth is interesting as it can have a different number assigned depending on your intent. The number I focus on is my total retirement account and any brokerage account. I purposely exclude the value of my house.* This tells me how much I'm able to invest. My heir would look at it a bit differently. She'd have the cash not only from the house, but from every bit of our possessions that can be sold. For my own purposes, knowing I have a piece of art that might sell for $xxx doesn't mean much, except for insurance purposes. In your case, if the coins are gold, and held for investment, count them. If they were your grandfather's and you plan to leave them to your own grandkids, I'd leave them out. * I make this point for two reasons - as someone with an eye toward retirement, the house doesn't get included in the 4% return math that I apply to the retirement and stock accounts. Also, in our situation, even when we downsize at retirement, the move isn't likely to pull much cash out of the house, it will be a lateral move. For those who plan to move from a McMansion in the suburbs of NY or Boston to a modest home in a lower cost of living elsewhere, that difference may be very important, and should be taken into account. This is simply how we handle this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fabbdbd646deebfed2e6ce56a9ae822",
"text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f469e2fa5ef685010cd4b8febf2dc799",
"text": "In 2015 there's a $5.43M (That's million, as in 6 zeros) estate exemption. Even though it's $14K per year with no paperwork required, if you go over this, a bit of paperwork will let you tap your lifetime exemption. There's no tax consequence from this. The Applicable Federal Rate is the minimum rate that must be charged for this to be considered a loan and not a gift. DJ's answer is correct, otherwise, and is worth knowing as there are circumstances where the strategy is applicable. If the OP were a high net worth client trying to save his estate tax exemption, this (Dj's) strategy works just fine.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ba43443175c904f81c459c9b3540a590
|
How to calculate my real earnings from hourly temp-to-hire moving to salaried employee?
|
[
{
"docid": "1a5e0d894cd75c85c0f41c7ac82bcbcb",
"text": "\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f8fdfaf770de8745e3b0fcaa705afcc",
"text": "\"This arrangement is a scam to get around certain tax and benefits laws, both State and Federal. I know they can't get away with this with a person-as-contractor, but this \"\"he's not a contractor, he's a business owner\"\" may move it into a gray area. (I used to know this stuff cold, but I've been retired for a while.) The fact that they asked you to do this is at all is, IMNSHO, a Red Flag®. They think that this way they won't be paying 1/2 your FICA, your Workman's Comp, health insurance, overtime, sick leave or vacation time ... you will. A somewhat simplistic rule of thumb for setting contracting rates is to take your targeted annual salary as a full-time, full-benefits employee and double it. So $50,000 becomes $100,000 a year; $25/hour becomes $50/hour. You can tell them that driving to their workplace from your company's location is now a \"\"site visit\"\" and charge them your hourly rate for the one-way commute time. You could also tell them that your company charges 150% for hours worked over 40 hours/week, plus 150% on Saturdays and 200% on Sundays. Your company may also have a minimum 30 days notice of termination with a penalty kicker. Get it all in writing and signed by someone who has the authority to sign it. Also, Get A Lawyer. The most expensive contracts I've ever signed were ones I thought I was smart enough to draw up myself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e20fe4193f69866d2bb46f62637b0ded",
"text": "\"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (\"\"job shops\"\") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your \"\"employer\"\" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current \"\"employer\"\".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area. Once you have a shop lined up, then ask your \"\"employer\"\" if, rather than you setting up a personal corporation, they'd be willing to work with an established Contract Engineering firm, who does this kind of thing for a living, who does this every day, who has been doing this for decades. Doing this is simpler for everyone, and, by going through an established firm, they avoid having to teach you how to do business with them. They also avoid the risk of having you reclassified by IRS as an employee, which exposes them to all kinds of legal and financial liability. If they say \"\"No\"\", WALK AWAY FROM THEM. Immediately. They've just thrown up a HUGE red flag. This is where the other discussions with the shop come into play.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a4130786450c04ffd206a2b40e28ac2",
"text": "If you are a temp-to-hire, or you are asked to setup a company then you are not an employee. They expect you to fund everything from your hourly rate. This includes pay, insurance, taxes, social security, sick, vacation, holidays... The rule of thumb for an established company is 1.75 to 2.25 times the salary rate is the rate they need to charge a customer. For example: employee get paid checks for $25/hour x 80 hours x 26 times a year.: 2080 hours or $52,000 per year. Company can only bill customers for 1800 to 1900 hours of labor. They need to bill at 2 times the salary rate or $50 per hour. They will collect $90,000 (1800*50). The numbers have to be run by the particular company based on their actual costs for benefits, overhead and profits. If they were giving you $25 an hour as a contractor. They expect you to be making $12.50 an hour as an employee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f913ab28f450bbe86724d87da09fac1",
"text": "I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "babcb6f6ad6c8b258cfec94ff4f3e897",
"text": "I believe temp agencies get a payout if the employer decides to hire on the temp full time usually. So it would be to prevent a temp from quitting and going to work for the employer as a way around that payment. The idea is to set a term long enough not to make it worthwhile for the employer to wait rather than paying the fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d938cfa19603cd76c60ccc1bc2fa74d2",
"text": "I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation. Not sure what you are referring to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "908ab82153e1d1a47409f81c431298ca",
"text": "\"When you pay the flight, hotel, conference attendance fees of $100: When you repay the credit card debt of $100: When you receive the gross salary of $5000: Your final balance sheet will show: Your final income statement will show: Under this method, your \"\"Salary\"\" account will show the salary net of business expense. The drawback is that the $4900 does not agree with your official documentation. For tax reporting purposes, you report $5000 to the tax agency, and if possible, report the $100 as Unreimbursed Employee Expenses (you weren't officially reimbursed). For more details see IRS Publication 529.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b526fac64b86f0d375209d228854e1b",
"text": "I use paycheckcity.com and first punch in my paycheck and make sure it calculates within a few pennies the value of my actual paycheck. Then I fiddle with withholding values, etc. to see the effect of change. It has been very effective for me over the years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9a5dcc1532513df50baedcb611b3ce",
"text": "Thanks for the answer/comments! The time-based method was something we mooted and something I almost went with. But just to wrap this up, the method we settled on was this: Every time there is an entry or exit into the fund, we divvy out any unrealised market profits/losses according to each person's profit share (based on % of the asset purchased at buy-in) JUST BEFORE the entry/exit. These realised profits are then locked in for those particpants, and then the unrealised profits/loss counter starts at zero, we do a fresh recalculation of shareholding after the entry/exit, and then we start again. Hope this helps anyone with the same issue!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7833f48df0b9d829546e90aeb990ef",
"text": "\"I have a related issue, since I have some income which is large enough to matter and hard to predict. Start with a best guess. Check what tax bracket you were in last year and withhold that percentage of the expected non-withheld income. Adjust upward a bit, if desired, to reflect the fact that you're getting paid more at the new job. Adjust again, either up or down, to reflect whether you were over-withheld or under-withheld last year (whether the IRS owed you a refund or you had to send a check with your return). Repeat that process next year after next tax season, when you see how well your guess worked out. (You could try pre-calculating the entire tax return based on your expected income and then divide any underpayment into per-paycheck additional withholding... but I don't think it's worth the effort.) I don't worry about trying to get this exactly correct. I don't stress about lost interest if I've over-withheld a bit, and as long as your withholding was reasonably close and you have the cash float available to send them a check for the rest when it comes due, the IRS generally doesn't grumble if your withholding was a bit low. (It would be really nice if the IRS paid us interest on over-withholding, to mirror the fact that they charge us interest if we're late in returning our forms. Oh well.) Despite all the stories, the IRS really is fairly reasonable; if you aren't deliberately trying to get away with something, the process is annoying but shouldn't be scary. The one time they mail-audited me, it was several thousand dollars in my favor; I'd forgotten to claim some investment losses, and their computers noticed the error. Though I still say the motto of the next revolution will be \"\"No taxation without proper instructions!\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a4a030d22b00725bc7d80f94e016cc4",
"text": "If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month. If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld. I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9a6590bf53c92059a963492127c1c9c",
"text": "DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO THAT!!! What could happen if you lie is that they ask for pay stubs before you get an offer letter. If you don't have paystubs to back up what you claim to of made you have likely just lost your job. If they keep you anyway they will be watching you like a hawk because you have proven on the front end that you can't be trusted. I just went through this very same thing a few months ago and here is how I handled it. These numbers are made up so not to reveal my real salary, of course. I was making $2/hr and underpaid at my then company and wanted to make $10 from the new guys. I knew they wouldn't pay me $10 so I was hoping to make $6. They also wouldn't pay me $6 put they offered me $5. $5 was $3 more than I was making before so I gladly took it. I have a salary I can live with for a few years and I'm in a position to grow with the new company. Be honest and negotiate. Be prepared to explain why you think you are worth the money you say you are. Be reasonable about the situation and don't get greedy. You are doing good by them showing interest in retaining you in the first place. Play your cards correctly and professionally and you will do well. Whatever you do don't lie about anything. Good luck!!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a67170ffc59dbf2ae2485ac4f2bd9",
"text": "I do something pretty simple when figuring 1099 income. I keep track of my income and deductible expenses on a spreadsheet. Then I do total income - total expenses * .25. I keep that amount in a savings account ready to pay taxes. Given that your estimates for the quarterly payments are low then expected, that amount should be more then enough to fully fund those payments. If you are correct, and they are low, then really what does it matter? You will have the money, in the bank, to pay what you actually owe to the IRS.",
"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": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224",
"text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3721ceb348cba68d223b26b4009fbc58",
"text": "One way to determine compensation is as a percentage per actual hour billed (and paid by client). Very common place to start is 33% for company overhead/administration (insurance, taxes, office expense, etc), 33% for sales commission/costs (roughly half as direct sales commission, half for marketing), 33% as gross 1099 pay compensation to the employee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e03ee94d9b1ed2237199cb7764bd1908",
"text": "Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd85b373ebfb5d77342806f310579e72",
"text": "Your math is fine, except employers might not permit the withdrawal. You'd have to go back to their rules or contact HR to understand the withdrawals permitted.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0fc6787f5f9852a41f366dcdbee68a80
|
Is buying a home a good idea?
|
[
{
"docid": "5595e91386763854de16756fc9b2988a",
"text": "\"IF the price of the property (1) increases A LOT, you will just break even, on the huge expenses of home owning. IF the price of the property (2) increases A HUGE AMOUNT, you will make lots of money, due to the leverage. IF the price of the property (3) stays even, you will LOSE a tremendous amount of money. It's much like owning a car - constant expenses. That's all there is to it. It's well worth bearing in mind that property prices for your area / your property need to be constantly increasing for you to merely break even. Note that over long periods of time prices tend to go up (most anywhere - but not everywhere). Many people basically base their thinking on that. It will be OK \"\"in the long run\"\". Which is fair enough. I believe one huge factor is that it is enforced saving. That is the number one advantage for most. Note too that in most/all jurisdictions, there are tremendous tax advantages, even if it turns out to be situation (1) (i.e. a waste of time, you only break-even). Note finally that there are, indeed, tremendous social/financial advantages to having the equity: it gets incredibly easy to get other loans (for business or the like) once you own a house; this is undeniably an advantage (perhaps press your husband on that one).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86ef55767b666f53554d2287dd693f59",
"text": "Once you paid it off, you don't pay rent anymore. That is the major advantage. Also, you can do any change you want to it. Many people consider it an investment - if you ever sell it, it could be worth more than what you paid (although this is not for sure)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97fd99a51984de3474ad8e5da3acae09",
"text": "Buying a house may save you money compared with renting, depending on the area and specifics of the transaction (including the purchase price, interest rates, comparable rent, etc.). In addition, buying a house may provide you with intangibles that fit your lifestyle goals (permanence in a community, ability to renovate, pride of ownership, etc.). These factors have been discussed in other answers here and in other questions. However there is one other way I think potential home buyers should consider the financial impact of home ownership: Buying a house provides you with a natural 'hedge' against possible future changes in your cost of living. Assume the following: If these two items are true, then buying a home allows you to guarantee today that your monthly living expenses will be mostly* fixed, as long as you live in that community. In 2 years, if there is an explosion of new residents in your community and housing costs skyrocket - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment [or if you paid cash, the lack of mortgage payment] is fixed. In 3 years, if there are 20 new apartment buildings built beside you and housing costs plummet - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment is fixed. If you know that you want to live in a particular place 20 years from now, then buying a house in that area today may be a way of ensuring that you can afford to live there in the future. *Remember that while your mortgage payment will be fixed, other costs of home ownership will be variable. See below. You may or may not save money compared with rent over the period you live in your house, but by putting your money into a house, you have protected yourself against catastrophic rent increases. What is the cost of hedging yourself against this risk? (A) The known costs of ownership [closing costs on purchase, mortgage interest, property tax, condo fees, home insurance, etc.]; (B) The unknown costs of ownership [annual and periodic maintenance, closing costs on a future sale, etc.]; (C) The potential earnings lost on your down payment / mortgage principal payments [whether it is low-risk interest or higher risk equity]; (D) You may have reduced savings for a long period of time which would limit your ability to cover emergencies (such as medical costs, unexpected unemployment, etc.) (E) You may have a reduced ability to look for a better job based on being locked into a particular location (though I have assumed above that you want to live in a particular community for an extended period of time, that desire may change); and (F) You can't reap the benefits of a rental market that decreases in real dollars, if that happens in your market over time. In short, purchasing a home should be a lifestyle-motivated decision. It financially reduces some the fluctuation in your long-term living costs, with the trade-off of committed principal dollars and additional ownership risks including limited mobility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31c68bac31fe0a96599eb89f3e57336b",
"text": "\"The New York Times offer a remarkably detailed Buy vs Rent calculator. You enter - From all of this, it advises the break-even rent, when monetarily, it's equal. I'd suggest you keep a few things in mind when using such a tool. Logic, common sense, and a Nobel prize winner named Robert Shiller all indicate that housing will follow inflation over the long term. Short term, even 20 years, the graphs will hint at something else, but the real long term, the cost of housing can't exceed inflation. The other major point I'd add is that I see you wrote \"\"We rent a nice house.\"\" Most often, people are looking to buy what they feel they can't easily rent. Whether it's the yard, room number or sizes, etc. This also leads to the purchase of too big a house. You can find that you can afford the extra bedroom, family room in addition to living room, etc, and then buy a house 50% bigger than what you need or planned on. In my opinion, getting the smallest house you can imagine living in, no bigger than what you live in now, and plan to get on a faster than 30 year repayment. Even with transaction costs, in 10 years, you'll have saved enough to make the bump up to a larger house if you wish.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a33d982f23e79ac83614f74dd4c8f6a",
"text": "\"A home actually IS a terrible investment. It has all the traits of something you would NEVER want to plunge your hard-earned money into. The only way that buying a house makes good money sense is if you pay cash for it and get a really good deal. It should also be a house you can see yourself keeping for decades or until you're older and want something easier to take care of. Of course, nothing can replace \"\"sense of ownership\"\" or \"\"sense of pride\"\" other than owning a house. And your local realtor is banking (really, laughing all the way to the bank) on your emotions overcoming your smart money savvy. This post really goes to work listing all the reasons why a house is a horrible investment. Should be required reading for everyone about to buy a house. Why your house is a terrible investment - jlcollinsnh.com TLDR; - You must decide what is more important, the money or the feelings. But you can't have both. If you read the article linked and still want to buy a house...then you probably should.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dea708a4a3ed2acf96b85950993dd8b2",
"text": "\"It certainly seems like you are focusing on the emotional factors. That's your blind spot, and it's the surest path to a situation where your husband gets to say \"\"I told you so\"\". I recommend you steer straight into that blind spot, and focus your studies on the business aspects of buying and owning homes. You should be able to do spreadsheets 6 ways from Sunday, be able to recite every tax deduction you'll get as a homeowner, know the resale impacts of 1 bathroom vs 2, tell a dirty house from a broken house, etc. Everybody's got their favorites, mine are a bit dated but I like Robert Irwin and Robert Allen's books. For instance: a philosophy of Allen's that I really like: never sell. This avoids several problems, like the considerable costs of money, time and nerves of actually selling a house, stress about house prices, mistaking your house's equity for an ATM machine, and byzantine rules for capital gains tax mainly if you rent out the house, which vary dramatically by nation. In fact the whole area of taxes needs careful study. There's another side to the business of home ownership, and that's renting to others. There's a whole set of economics there - and that is a factor in what you buy. Now AirBNB adds a new wrinkle because there's some real money there. Come to understand that market well enough to gauge whether a duplex or triplex will be a money maker. Many regular folk like you have retired early and live off the rental income from their properties. JoeTaxpayer has an interesting way of looking at the finances of housing: if a house doesn't make sense as a a rental unit, maybe it doesn't make sense as a live-in either. So learn how to identify those fundamentals - the numbers. And get in the habit of evaluating houses. Work it regularly until it's second nature. Then, yes, you'll see houses you fall in love with, partly because the numbers work. It also helps to be handy. It really, really changes the economics if you can do your own quality work, because you don't need to spend any money on labor to convert a dirty house into a clean house. And lots of people do, and there's a whole SE just for that. There is a huge difference between going down to the local building supply and getting the water pipe you need, vs. having to call a plumber. And please deal with local businesses, please don't go to the Big Box stores, their service is abominable, they will cheerfully sell you a gadget salad of junk that doesn't work together, and I can't imagine a colder and less inviting scene to come up as a handy person.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f30788f8fb761d716f81b5eca3e2ce50",
"text": "\"This might be a good idea, depending on your personality and inclinations. Key points: How close is the building to you? Do not buy any building that is more than 20 minutes travel from where you are. Do you have any real hard experience with doing construction, building maintenance and repair? Do you have tools? Example: do you have a reciprocating saw? do you know what a reciprocating saw is? If your answer to both those questions is \"\"no\"\", think twice about acquiring a property that involves renovation. Renovation costs can be crushing, especially for someone who is not an experienced carpenter and electrician. Take your estimates of costs and quadruple them. Can you still afford it? Do you want to be a landlord? Being a landlord is a job. You will be called in the middle of the night by tenants who want their toilet to get fixed and stuff like that. Is that what you want to spend your time doing, driving 20 minutes to change lightbulbs and fix toilets?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c4bc25e5ecf9f7dd4e2a49e2fe716ba",
"text": "\"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the \"\"bank\"\"). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house. To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c074e41e3cb931ec2dfbfc915fdbe0e",
"text": "\"The logic \"\"the interest rate on the mortgage was so low it didn't make sense not to buy\"\" is one reason the housing bubble happened. The logic was that it made the house affordable even at high prices. Once the prices collapsed people still had affordable payments, but were unable to sell because they were upside down on the mortgage. If you can refinance to a 15-year mortgage, or from a adjustable mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. it can make sense. You can save on the monthly payment, and on the total cost of the mortgage. But don't buy to take advantage of rates; or to save on taxes; or to build a guaranteed equity. These can be false economies or things that can't be gaurenteed. Of course if nobody spends money, the economy will stay poor. As to hidden details. Only purchase housing you want to own for the long haul. If you expect to flip it in a few years, you might not be able to. You might end up stuck as a long distance landlord.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6bafc178dad29c3bf694d00227deaf5",
"text": "\"If I were you, I would rent. Wait to buy a home. Here is why: When you say that renting is equal in cost to a 30-year mortgage, you are failing to consider several aspects. See this recent answer for a list of things that need to be considered when comparing buying and renting. You have no down payment. Between the two of you, you have $14,000, but this money is needed for both your emergency fund and your fiancée's schooling. In your words: \"\"we can’t reeaallllly afford a home.\"\" A home is a big financial commitment. If you buy a home before you are financially ready, it will be continuous trouble. If you need a cosigner, you aren't ready to buy a home. I would absolutely advise whoever you are thinking about cosigning for you not to do so. It puts them legally on the hook for a house that you can't yet afford. You aren't married yet. You should never buy something as big as a home with someone you aren't married to; there are just too many things that can go wrong. (See comments for more explanation.) Wait until you are married before you buy. Your income is low right now. And that is okay for now; you've been able to avoid the credit card debt that so many people fall into. However, you do have student loans to pay, and taking on a huge new debt right now would be potentially disastrous for you. Your family income will eventually increase when your fiancée gets her degree and gets a job, and at that time, you will be in a much better situation to consider buying a house. You need to move \"\"ASAP.\"\" Buying a house when you are in a hurry is a generally a bad idea. When you look for a home, you need to take some time looking so you aren't rushed into a bad deal that you will regret. Even if you decide you want to buy, you should first find a place to rent; then you can take your time finding the right house. To answer your question about escrow: When you own a house, two of the required expenses that you will have besides the mortgage payment are property taxes and homeowner's insurance. These are large payments that are only due once a year. The bank holding the mortgage wants to make sure that they get paid. So to help you budget for these expenses and to ensure that these expenses are paid, the bank will add these to your monthly mortgage payment, and set them aside in a savings account (called an escrow account). Then when these bills come due once a year, they are paid for out of the escrow account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8235e95dbdf4a3ee49fa95b34de43948",
"text": "The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a59570049a42e56497a59511e25abb8e",
"text": "I think part of why it is perceived is so bad is because the fluctuations in housing prices are relatively large, especially compared to the amount needed to put a down payment. This is not an uncommon scenario: And this is not even being underwater, just being even. Imagine how much worse it feels if your dream of home ownership has turned into just a pile of debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e058a9c9c6fcfe1a68a04d3b3487bba3",
"text": "\"All other factors being equal, owning your primary residence is almost always a good investment over the long haul. Why? Because you have to live somewhere, and rentals, especially long-term leases that are important when you have kids in school, etc., are generally in the same ballpark as a mortgage in most markets. Giving $1,500 to a landlord gets me 30 days of living somewhere. Giving $1,500 to the bank gets me a place to live and equity in an asset which requires maintenance, but always has intrinsic value. Detroit is one extreme, Manhattan or Silicon Valley is another real estate extreme... everywhere else is somewhere in the middle. What isn't always a good investment is speculating in highly elastic \"\"investment property\"\" like vacation condos as an amateur. It's a cyclical market, but our attention spans are too short to realize that. As most of the other answers to this question indicate, people tend to be down in the dumps and see all of the problems with real estate when the market is not very good. Conversely people only see the upside and are oblivious to problems when the market is high.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e8cd130942cc8542e6028780b22781a",
"text": "There are thousands of dealers in the real estate market which claims to provide you the best homes at lowest price but before investing such a huge amount in property, one should take decision wisely. As investing in your home is a life time investment and it must be cost effective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6194e70294709a000a67a8082c3515f1",
"text": "\"I think anyone who is seriously contemplating a real estate purchase needs to sit down and read some history -- in particular the accounts of the 1930's and what happened to people who jumped into real estate in the midst of the depression. If you're not aware: by and large, what happened is they lost their asses: the property continues to fall in value, and then they're on the hooked for increasing taxes as local and state governments raise taxes in a desperate attempt to plug budget holes. And, of course, interest rates are headed nowhere but up. That will inversely impact your home's value, given that most people buy homes exactly like you're thinking about them: not how much the home is worth, but rather how much payment can you afford (as rates go up, you can afford less). A contemporary piece which has lots of accounts of this over multiple years is [The Great Depression - A Diary](http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Depression-A-Diary/dp/1586489011). IMHO real estate is to be avoided until well after a bottom has been reached, and that's IMHO still some years away. Someone coming out of college now should ferret away as much money as possible, live as cheaply as possible, and stay far, far away from thoughts of \"\"gee, it sure would be a good idea to go drop half a million dollars on a house when I'm making $70K.\"\" While you're predicting raises and employment, neither is safe to take for granted. Indeed, many folks thought that in the late 00's and got absolutely destroyed financially as a result.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5df8a849a52d5c0667cc5f525bd7ab6",
"text": "The rent versus buy question is a deeply personal one in which your personal desires for a living space need to be carefully combined with what makes economic sense. Do you want your own place with all the joys of having it be yours and all the pains of having to handle all the maintenance and be the one ultimately responsible? Have you tried living for a few months putting aside the amount required for not only a mortgage payment but the taxes and insurance on a house/condo in your price range to see if you can really afford it? You can use a real estate website such as trulia to see the assessments of some for sale homes and figure out tax values. The average home insurance in the US is around $900/year if I remember right - more for homes that are more expensive and less for less expensive ones, with flooding and other hazards as a factor. Make sure you can afford to pay for all these items. From a financial perspective realize that you'll always be spending money on your living space. Even if you pay for a house with cash you will be paying property tax and maintenance and would be wise to continue paying for insurance. The value of the house at that point is, as contributor fennec often says, the rent you aren't paying. I personally don't recommend trying to time the market. You can't predict the future - will real estate in your area be a double dip or has it bottomed and is it going up? What you can do is buy a home only when you are sure that you can deal with its relative lack of liquidity by staying there for a long time. Five years is usually a reasonable minimum. There is a way that I recommend figuring out if it is likely bad financial decision to buy, and that's by looking at a financial comparison of renting versus buying. In some cases even with the bursting of the bubble it is still a bad deal to buy. DC went from renting being more cost effective to buying, but San Francisco is one area where buying is still not necessarily the best choice. To figure out what the case is for your area, look at the New York Times rent versus buy calculator. Find a home for rent on craigslist similar to what you'd look to buy. Find a home for sale on one of the MLS aggregator sites that represents something you think you'd like. Plug in the numbers. Figure out how many years you'd have to stay in your purchase for it to be a good deal. In the likely event that the calculator says buy, start saving if that's what you really want. You're never going to be able to absolutely guarantee that you won't be upside down. What you can control is getting as much principal in that house as you can. The more you have, the less likely you will be upside down. Build a down payment now, reap the rewards later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db30f9ff88078772375651cf85355306",
"text": "House as investment is not a good idea. Besides the obvious calculations don't forget the property tax, home maintenance costs and time, insurance costs, etc. There are a lot of hidden drains on the investment value of the house; most especially the time that you have to invest in maintaining it. On the other hand, if you plan on staying in the area, having children, pets or like do home improvements, landscaping, gardening, auto repair, wood/metal shopping then a house might be useful to you. Also consider the housing market where you are. This gets a bit more difficult to calculate but if you have a high-demand rental market then the house might make sense as an investment if you can rent it out for more than your monthly cost (including all of those factors above). But being a landlord is not for everyone. Again more of your time invested into the house, you have to be prepared to go months without renting it, you may have to deal with crazy people that will totally trash your house and threaten you if you complain, and you may need to part with some of the rent to a management company if you need their skills or time. It sounds like you are just not that interested right now. That's fine. Don't rush. Invest your money some other way (i.e.: the stock market). More than likely when you are ready for a house, or to bail your family out of trouble (if that's what you choose to do), you'll have even more assets to do either with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edba9615a6bb1cd4c4198604e9497c9d",
"text": "If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9736dc511d3b562f2279b7227c40a95",
"text": "There's probably no simple answer, but it's fair to say there are bad times to buy, and better times. If you look at a house and see the rent is more than the mortgage payment, it may be time to consider buying. Right now, the market is depressed, if you buy and plan to stay put, not caring if it drops from here because you plan to be there for the long term, you may find a great deal to be had. Over the long term, housing matches inflation. Sounds crazy, but. Even into the bubble, if you looked at housing in terms of mortgage payment at the prevailing 30yr fixed rate and converted the payment to hours needed to work to make the payment, the 2005 bubble never was. Not at the median, anyway. At today's <5% rate, the mortgage will cost you 3.75% after taxes. And assuming a 3% long term inflation rate, less than 1%. You have expenses, to be sure, property tax, maintenance, etc, but if you fix the mortgage, inflation will eat away at it, and ultimately it's over. At retirement, I'll take a paid for house over rising rents any day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d352dd687331678cf1e9b26bddfc96b",
"text": "\"1) Don't buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you've reached the point in your life where you don't expect to move in the next five years and you'd prefer to own a house (with its advantages/disadvantages) than to rent (with its advantages/disadvantages). Thinking of houses primarily as investments is what caused the housing bubble, crash, and Great Recession. 2) Before buying a house for cash, look at the available mortgage interest rates versus market rate of return. Owning the house outright is slightly lower stress, but using the house as the basis for a \"\"leveraged investment\"\" may be financially wiser. (I compromised; I paid 50% down and took a mortgage for the other 50%.) 3) 1 year is short-term. Your money doesn't belong in the market if you're going to need it in the short term. If you really intend to pull it back out that soon, I'd stick with CD/money-market kinds of instruments. 4) Remember that while a house is illiquid, it is possible to take out home equity loans... so money you put into a house isn't completely inaccessible. You just can't move elsewhere as easily.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31c83387a5c166a0bf0e8c3637a9e7db",
"text": "I'll add this to what the other answers said: if you are a renter now, and the real estate you want to buy is a house to live in, then it may be worth it - in a currency devaluation, rent may increase faster than your income. If you pay cash for the home, you also have the added benefit of considerably reducing your monthly housing costs. This makes you more resilient to whatever the future may throw at you - a lower paying job, for instance, or high inflation that eats away at the value of your income. If you get a mortgage, then make sure to get a fixed interest rate. In this case, it protects you somewhat from high inflation because your mortgage payment stays the same, while what you would have had to pay in rent keeps going up an up. In both cases there is also taxes and insurance, of course. And those would go up with inflation. Finally, do make sure to purchase sensibly. A good rule of thumb on how much you can afford to pay for a home is 2.5x - 3.5x your annual income. I do realize that there are some areas where it's common for people to buy homes at a far greater multiple, but that doesn't mean it's a sensible thing to do. Also: I'll second what @sheegaon said; if you're really worried about the euro collapsing, it might give you some peace of mind to move some money into UK Gilts or US Treasuries. Just keep in mind that currencies do move against each other, so you'd see the euro value of those investments fluctuate all the time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a13ded92a4a367965ed04537e220d22c
|
How come the government can value a home more than was paid for the house?
|
[
{
"docid": "c65e180a03ca3811c59fe7efaec2ad2f",
"text": "\"When a house is sold at a foreclosure auction, the selling bank usually does not provide the guarantees that a normal house seller provides. Furthermore, the previous owner may have neglected the property, and/or spitefully damaged the property. Bank-owned properties are often neglected and/or vandalized. Banks are usually too short-sighted to properly market the real estate they own, and do a poor job of making it easy to buy the property. Thus, foreclosure sales usually happen at a price that is significantly below the \"\"fair market value\"\" of sales between competent households. It is common for a house that is worth $ 125,000 (even in a depressed market) to sell for only $ 100,000 in a short sale or foreclosure. It is possible that this property sold for an even larger discount. It is also possible that the tax assessor is (inadvertently) comparing a run-down property with well-maintained properties that have extra expensive features, without fully adjusting for the properties' conditions and features. In the latter scenario, the property owner can ask the tax assessor to re-consider the assessment. Usually this request is called an \"\"appeal\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8493688530d848b6c06773b25ac03f85",
"text": "\"The real answer why the government is \"\"allowed\"\" to do something is because they are the government and they make the rules. There are lots of laws that I think make no sense. I ran into a similar situation to yours. I bought a house during a time when the market in my area was way down. The previous owner had paid $140,000 but I got it for only $80,000. The government appraised it for, I forget the exact number, but over $100,000. I appealed, and the argument I made to the appeal board was that the law says it is supposed to be appraised for \"\"fair market value\"\". The definition of \"\"fair market value\"\" is the amount that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, absent special conditions like a sweetheart sale to a relative. The house had been advertised for a higher price and the seller had to drop the price several times before getting an offer, and finally accepting mine. This is pretty much the definition of \"\"fair market value\"\". The appeals board replied that it was not FMV because the market was bad at this particular time and so I got a good deal. I said that that's the definition of market value: it goes up and down as market conditions change. If the market happened to be up when someone bought a house and they had to pay a high price, would the government assess the house at a lower value because that was an unusually high price? I doubt it. They ended up reducing the assessed value, but not to what I actually paid. All that said, arguably a foreclosure sale might be considered special conditions. Prices at a foreclosure sale tend to be lower than \"\"ordinary\"\" sales. In a foreclosure, the bank is usually trying to get rid of the property quickly because they don't want to be in the property-management business, they want to be in the money lending and management business. Of course you could say that sort of thing about conditions surrounding many sales. Maybe the price is low because the seller needed cash now to start a business. Maybe the price is high because the buyer was too lazy to shop around. Maybe the price is low because the buyer is a very skilled negotiator. Etc etc. My watch just broke and while I was shopping for a new one I found two listings for the exact same watch, I mean exact same manufacturer and model number, identical picture, on the same web site, one giving the price as $24 and the other as $99. What is the market value of that watch? I presume anyone who saw both listings would pick the $24 one, but I presume some number of people pay the higher price because they never see the lower price. In real life there isn't really one, exact, fair market value. That's an abstraction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5197920633415c6e9338c6eec755f843",
"text": "\"The property tax valuation and the fair market price are NOT one and the same. They track each other, correlate to each other, but are almost NEVER the same number. In some parts of the USA, a municipality has to re-assess property tax values every ten years. In these places, the tax value of a property is on something like a 10-year moving average, NOT on the volatile daily market price. EDIT: It is easy to fall into the \"\"trap\"\" of thinking that property tax valuation is intended to represent fair market value. It's INTENT is to provide an accurate (or, as accurate as possible) RELATIVE VALUATION of your property compared to the other properties in the municipality. The sum of all the property values is the tax base of the municipality. When the town budget (which is paid in part via property taxes) is set, the town simply divides the tax base into the budget total to arrive at the ratio of tax-to-collect, to the tax base, also called the \"\"tax rate per thousand dollars of valuation.\"\" i.e. if the town tax base is US$10,000,000, and the town budget is US$500,000, then the ratio is 0.05, or $50 per thousand dollars of valuation. If your property is assessed at US$100,000, then you would pay 100 x $50, or $5000 in property taxes that year. Since this is the goal of the property tax valuation, NOT deciding what your house is worth on the open market, then we are left with the question of \"\"why use the market value of a house for property assessment?\"\" and the answer is that of all the various schemes and algorithms you can try, \"\"fair market value\"\" is the easiest and most accurate...IF TIME FLUCUTATIONS ARE TAKEN OUT. For example, if I buy a house in a development for $250,000 today, and next summer the housing market crashes, and you buy the identical house next door to me for $150,000, it does NOT stand to reason that you should pay less taxes than me, because your house is \"\"worth\"\" $100,000 less. In fact, BOTH our houses are worth $100,000 less. What matters most in property tax valuation isn't the actual number, but rather, is YOUR valuation the same as other essentially similar properties in your tax base? Getting the RELATIVE ratio of value between you and your neighbors correct is the goal of property tax valuation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ea4c5645f9501efe06d56633977f905",
"text": "Keep in mind, there are times that house is in such bad shape that it's going to need 6 months of renovations, in which case you might ask the town if they are willing to reappraise a lower value until the work is completed. Keep in mind, you'll get a new appraisal when permitted (I mean pulling a permit from the town) work is done. I finished my basement and the town was eager to send the appraiser over even before work was fully complete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b747eda5feed3908986e4fce20f50d45",
"text": "From my perspective I suspect that if the government use the paid price, people will start to buy at very low nominal prices in order to pay less taxes, and will repay the seller by other means.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4756eab6ac2200618ce3994a7c1fc7a3",
"text": "That really depends on the lender, and in the current climate this is extremely unlikely. In the past it was possible to get a loan which is higher than the value of the house (deposit considered), usually on the basis that the buyer is going to improve the property (extend, renovate, etc.) and this increase the value of the property. Responsible lenders required some evidence of the plans to do this, but less responsible ones simply seem to have given the money. Here in the UK this was often based on the assumption that property value tends to rise relatively quickly anyway so a seemingly-reasonable addition to the loan on top of the current value of the property will quickly be covered. That meant that indeed some people have been able to get a loan which is higher than the cost of the purchase, even without concrete plans to actively increase the value of the property. Today the situation is quite different, lenders are a lot more careful and I can't see this happening. All that aside - had it been possible, is it a good idea? I find it difficult to come up with a blanket rule, it really depends on many factors - On the one hand mortgage interest rates tend to be significantly lower than shorter term interest rates and from that point of view, it makes sense, right?! However - they are usually very long term, often with limited ability to overpay, which means the interest will be paid over a longer period of time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d43fcc68268ff0da832453bd4ae2fc5f",
"text": "\"Presumably the existing house has some value. If you demolish the existing house, you are destroying that value. If the value of the new house is significantly more than the value of the old house, like if you're talking about replacing a small, run-down old house worth $50,000 with a big new mansion worth $10,000,000, then the value of the old house that is destroyed might just get lost in the rounding errors for all practical purposes. But otherwise, I don't see how you would do this without bringing cash to the table basically equal to what you still owe on the old house. Presumably the new house is worth more than the old, so the value of the property when you're done will be more than it was before. But will the value of the property be more than the old mortgage plus the new mortgage? Unless the old mortgage was almost paid off, or you bring a bunch of cash, the answer is almost certainly \"\"no\"\". Note that from the lienholder's point of view, you are not \"\"temporarily\"\" reducing the value of the property. You are permanently reducing it. The bank that makes the new loan will have a lien on the new house. I don't know what the law says about this, but you would have to either, (a) deliberately destroy property that someone else has a lien on while giving them no compensation, or (b) give two banks a lien on the same property. I wouldn't think either option would be legal. Normally when people tear down a building to put up a new building, it's because the value of the old building is so low as to be negligible compared to the value of the new building. Either the old building is run-down and getting it into decent shape would cost more than tearing it down and putting up a new building, or at least there is some benefit -- real or perceived -- to the new building that makes this worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87cae50c530734fd55cebc1b1f8ea58e",
"text": "\"I had the same thing happen to my house. I bought it in 2011 for 137,000, which was the same as the FHA appraised value (because FHA won't guarantee a loan for more than their appraiser thinks its worth). January of last year, I get the letter from the tax office and see that my house has been assessed at only 122,000. I was shocked too, until I read a similar document that Phil told you to read. The short of it is, no matter what the tax assessor calls their calculation, it is an assessment. It was mass-produced along with everyone else's in your neighborhood by looking at its specs on paper (acreage, house square footage, age, beds/baths) and by driving by your home to see its general condition. The fact that your lawn may be less well-kept than the last time they drove by could have affected the decision a little. It's very unlikely to have been a major determinant of the assessment. The assessment value affects taxes, and taxes only. It is, in most states, a matter of public record, and so it could be used by a potential buyer to negotiate a lower price. However, everyone in the housing business knows that the assessed value is not the market value, and the buyer's agent will be encouraging their client to make a more realistic bid. This \"\"assessed value\"\" is not an \"\"appraisal value\"\". An appraisal is done by someone actually walking into and through your home, inspecting the general condition inside and out, to try to make a fair evaluation of what the home is actually worth. That number is almost always going to be more than the assessment value, because it takes into account all the amenities of the home; the current fixtures, the well-kept (or recently-replaced) flooring, the energy-efficient HVAC and hot water system, etc etc. It also takes into account recent comparables; what have other houses, with the same general statistics, the same amenities, relatively close in location, sold for recently? That will still generally be different from the true market value of the home. That value is nothing more or less than what a potential buyer will pay to have it at the time you decide to sell it, and that in turn depends 100% on your potential buyers' myriad situations. Someone may lowball even the assessed value because they're looking for a deal and hoping you're desperate; you just reject the offer. Someone may be looking at comparables indicating the house is maybe overpriced by $10k. You can counter and try to come to an agreement. Or, your potential buyer could work five minutes from your house, and be willing to pay at or above your asking price because the next best possibility is another 10 miles away. Since you aren't looking to sell the home, none of this matters, except to determine any escrow payments you might be making towards property taxes. Just keep making your mortgage payment, and don't worry about it. If you really wanted to, you could petition the state for a second opinion, but you think the value should be higher; if they agree with you, they'll raise the assessed value and you'll pay more in taxes. Why in the world would you want to do that?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aead3049de7a22bb0e128792c7e1b97",
"text": "\"Valuation by definition is what an item is worth, not what you paid for it. Net worth should be market value for fixed assets or \"\"capital\"\" goods. I would consider this cars, real property, furniture, jewelry, appliances, tools, etc. Everything else can be valued by liquidation value. You can use valuation guides for tax deductions as a way to guide your valuation. Insurance companies usually just pick a percentage of your home's value as a guesstimate for content value. I could see doing this as a way to guide purchase decisions for appliances, cars or the like. But if you are trying to figure out the market value of your socks and underwear, I would argue that you're doing something that's a little silly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "535266e2040482ce5e44ce6baca813c3",
"text": "An example, where I live. When you buy a house, the seller wants 'black' money. This is because that way the seller pays less taxes. However, it's not smart for the buyer to pay in black, as the tax reductions are lower. Eventually, when the buyer tries to sell the house, he has to declare the difference, so a higher buy price should not have affected... apart from the notary minutes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "246d520eda4cc69e60ea84b164b15d03",
"text": "Property taxes, at least in Canada, are levied by the municipality or city in which the property is situated. For many cities, it is a significant source of income. Part of the justification from the municipal point of view is that the land is serviced, in that it generally has city services like water, sewer, garbage collection and the like. The taxes also commonly pay for city services like libraries, fire and ambulance. The tax rates vary widely across cities, so where your dream house is located may have a large impact on your overall tax bill. Property tax is more-or-less a government imposed lien on your house. You can be foreclosed on if you are unable to pay. This is a last resort of course, but can and does happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9233fe4bc97c40460658fc09384361a7",
"text": "Put simply, the advice to never sell a home in CA is based on Note that #2 is unusual: property taxes that do not change as the home value rises came about because of a voter ballot measure, CA Prop 13. So in California, selling your home will expose the buyer of your home to more property taxes than you had to pay. This has some odd consequences: This is all fairly unique. I know property taxes in Tennnessee change as the home increases in value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6124bf99a81991c16079513b5bf8618d",
"text": "\"Property taxes, where they exist, are generally levied by cities, counties and other local-level administrative bodies like MUDs, and are the primary source of revenue at these levels of government. These taxes pay the lion's share of the expenses for basic services provided by a city or county: There are federal dollars, other revenue sources (State lottery revenues often go toward public schools for instance), and \"\"usage fees\"\" (vehicle registration, utility bills, toll roads) at play as well, but a lot of that money covers larger-scale infrastructure development (freeways/interstates) and specialized \"\"earmarks\"\" (political backscratching involving this bridge or that dam in a Congresscritter's home district, a few national initiatives from the President's budget like first-responder technology upgrades for improved disaster/terrorism readiness). Property taxes are the main funding for the day-to-day government operations at the most visible level to the average resident. The theory behind using a property tax instead of some other form of taxation (like income) is that the value of the property and the quality of services provided to the resident(s) of that property are interrelated; the property is valuable in part because the infrastructure is well-maintained and nearby schools/hospitals are good, and by the same token, affluent residents expect high-quality services. Property taxes are also easier to levy, because most of the work can be done by the tax assessor; monitor recent sale prices, do drive-bys through neighborhoods, come up with a number and send the resident the bill. That's opposed to sales taxes which businesses operating in the jurisdiction have to calculate, collect and turn over, or income taxes which require residents to fill out paperwork to calculate how much they owe. The justification is eminent domain. It's very simple; when you buy land in the U.S. and a State thereof, you are still a citizen and/or resident of that State and the U.S., and subject to their laws. You're not creating your own country when you buy a house. As such, the government charges you for the facilities and services they provide in your area and your State, which are then your privilege to use. Obviously roads aren't free; a one-mile stretch behind my house is costing the county $15 million to expand it from 2-lane to 4-lane. Here's the kicker; you've already been paying these taxes. You think your landlord's just going to take the property taxes for the whole apartment complex on the chin? He's out to make money, and doing that requires charging a sufficient amount to cover costs, including taxes he incurs. You just never see \"\"allocated property taxes\"\" as an item on your rent statement, just like you don't see \"\"allocated landowner mortgage\"\", \"\"allocated facilities maintenance\"\", \"\"allocated gross margin\"\" etc. You know you're getting shafted, paying someone else's financing with a little extra on the side to boot. That's why you want a house. Unfortunately, not being able to pay these taxes is a grim reality for some people, old and young, and government generally doesn't go easy on delinquent homeowners. After medical bills and mortgage delinquency, property tax delinquency is the number three reason for bankruptcy, and only a mortgage or property tax delinquency can cause your home to be seized and sold. Well that and using it for criminal enterprise, but unless you're running a meth lab in your half-million-dollar home or financing it with coke money I wouldn't worry about that score. Retirement planners figure property taxes into cost of living, and they do often advise a downgrade from the 2-story house you raised your children in to something smaller (for many reasons, including lower taxes). There really isn't a way to structure a completely \"\"pay-as-you-go\"\" metropolitan area, and you wouldn't want to live in it if there were. Imagine every strip of asphalt in the county being a toll road where your transponder (TollTag, EZ-Pass, etc) or license plate was scanned and you were billed at each intersection. In addition to being a huge invasion of privacy, the cost to maintain this network (and your cost to use it) would skyrocket. Imagine 911 asking for a credit card number before dispatching police, fire or EMS (Ambulance services already do bill on a per-event basis, but you'd be surprised how few people pay and how little power a county EMS has to enforce collection; without a property tax and Medicaid to cover the difference, EMS service could not be provided in most counties).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c736826887aa913f0544388ca51db098",
"text": "If the building has no income, it also probably has minimal expenses. The heat, water and electricity costs are nearly zero. They are letting the value depreciate, and taking it off the taxes. I also suspect the condition of the building is poor, so any effort to make the building productive would be very costly. Many cities combat this by setting the tax on empty buildings or empty lots at a much higher rate. Or they set the value of the property at a high valuation based on what it could generate. Sometimes this is only targeted at some sections of the city to encourage development. They also offer tax breaks when the owner of a house has the house as their principal residence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1372eca98843f33d82d53e28b69a5f0b",
"text": "\"No, it can really not. Look at Detroit, which has lost a million residents over the past few decades. There is plenty of real estate which will not go for anything like it was sold. Other markets are very risky, like Florida, where speculators drive too much of the price for it to be stable. You have to be sure to buy on the downturn. A lot of price drops in real estate are masked because sellers just don't sell, so you don't really know how low the price is if you absolutely had to sell. In general, in most of America, anyway, you can expect Real Estate to keep up with inflation, but not do much better than that. It is the rental income or the leverage (if you buy with a mortgage) that makes most of the returns. In urban markets that are getting an influx of people and industry, however, Real Estate can indeed outpace inflation, but the number of markets that do this are rare. Also, if you look at it strictly as an investment (as opposed to the question of \"\"Is it worth it to own my own home?\"\") there are a lot of additional costs that you have to recoup, from property taxes to bills, rental headaches etc. It's an investment like any other, and should be approached with the same due diligence.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba8df4dad5de33163286a919442bf9d4",
"text": "You're paying 5.2% 'interest' on the $115K (500 * 12 / 115,000) * 100 but the amount you pay back is not $115K but 75% of the property value at sale. Is that right? A mortgage would have cost about half that rate and the balloon payment would have been fixed - you would pay back $115K at maturity plus you could have sold it whenever you liked As Gnasher729 said, if you consider it to be rent then the situation looks different but the point of buying a house is to avoid paying 'useless' rent, build equity and hopefully make a capital gain I'd speak to a lawyer & possibly an accountant (regarding the numbers)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77309dc2d98d3e74a6560ec7f0ea4887",
"text": "\"I don't understand what are the apples and the oranges in them equation above. Also, how do we \"\"assign more money into the system to represent added value in the system?\"\". This is the crux of the matter. Currently, it's gov't debt, as far as I can see. I'm really interested in where else it might come from, and would love to hear your answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb90855308bded6bdcea451a5624a0fe",
"text": "\"There are a number of reasons I'm in agreement with \"\"A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank.\"\" So, the update to the first comment should be \"\"A paid off house worth $300K, or a house with $150K equity and $275K in the retirement account.\"\" Edit - On reflection, an interesting question, but I wonder how many actually have this choice. When a family budgets for housing, and uses a 25% target, this number isn't much different for rent vs for the mortgage cost. So how, exactly do the numbers work out for a couple trying to save the next 80% of the home cost? A normal qualifying ration allows a house that costs about 3X one's income. A pay-in-full couple might agree to be conservative and drop to 2X. Are they on an austerity plan, saving 20% of their income in addition to paying the rent? Since the money must be invested conservatively, is it keeping up with house prices? After 10 years, inflation would be pushing the house cost up 30% or so, so is this a 12-15 year plan? I'm happy to ignore the tax considerations. But I question the math of the whole process. It would seem there's a point where the mortgage (plus expenses) add up to less than the rent. And I'd suggest that's the point to buy the house.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a730624c13434ec84e3a67975f3dd2a",
"text": "First, the basis is what was paid for the house along with any documented upgrades, any improvements not consider maintenance. Any gain from that point is taxable. This is the issue with gifting a house before one passes. It's an awful mistake. The fact that there was a mortgage doesn't come into play here nor does the $15K given away. Your question is great, and the only missing piece is what the house cost. Keep in mind, depending on the state, you MIL may have gotten a step-up on the passing of her husband. On a very personal note - my grandparents bough a family house. 4 apartments. 1938 at a cost of $4000. My grandmother transferred 1/2 share to my father well before she died. And before my father's death it was put into my mother's name. Now that she's in her last years, I explained that since moved it to my sister's name already, there's no step up in basis. This share is now worth over $600,000, and after 4 deaths, no step up. When my sister sells, she will have a gain on nearly 100% of the sale price. In my opinion, there's a special place in hell for lawyers that quit claim property like this. For a bit of paperwork, the house could have been put into a trust to avoid probate, avoid being an asset for medicaid, and still get the step up. Even a $2000 cost for a good lawyer to set up a trust would yield a return of nearly $100,000 in taxes avoided. (And as my sister's keeper, I'd have paid the $2,000 myself, no issue that she gets the house. She needs it, I don't. And when the money's gone, I'm all she has anyway.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f90edbfca0952db93bd3675d5978d7c4",
"text": "Why should the rich who buy more expensive homes be subisdized by those who pay less, or from those who rent? A person who buys a 500k home in a high property tax area wins twice. Once but having more tax breaks by being able to deduct more than your average working class person who buys a house at 250k and the second time when they get nicer schools, public services etc at other people's dime. SF home prices are a combination or speculation investment and poor government control. SF prices are at Tokyo levels when the population density is at 1/10. That is a failure of local government policy to build more homes, not from lack of tax breaks. If your community wants to pay higher taxes for more local services, power to you and I encourage it, but you shouldn't be subsidized by those who dont. Imo, people shouldn't be punished for not owning property or living in a state where they think sales tax is better than income or property.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4bd8d2187b78d88bfb6b8d23eca3e650
|
Offshore bank account with online International wire-transfer facility for Indians
|
[
{
"docid": "2aebc3236bf05398c43612ad19dc8249",
"text": "Well first off, I would advice you to do this research yourself. You should not base your selection off someone's opinion such as mines. With that being said, these are some factors I suggest you consider and research before talking to an offshore bank account: Now, when opening an offshore account most offshore banks do not require you to be present at all. You can open an account simply by calling them or filling out their application online. However, be prepared to provide them with some information to verify who you are and the nature of your business such as a notarized passport along with other various forms of information that they may require. Just think of what your local bank requires is generally what they will ask as well. Here is a compiled list of offshore bank accounts to consider: These banks overall have a range between $0 - $1 million (domestic currency) minimum deposits. Most of them ranging from $1000-$5000. It all depends on the type of account, the nature of the account, and the business associated with the account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33699ea0773d2f8560dc187dfcf52425",
"text": "India does allow Resident Indians to open USD accounts. Most leading National and Private Banks offer this. You can receive funds and send funds subject to some norms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "513c294394934b6882b8506b9d15ffa4",
"text": "All Indian Banks are offering USD accounts known as multicurrency account, where you can hold your fund, this account also permits you to book the USD to INR rates in advance if you require. You can keep your money in this account and also can remit the same back to source or other destination country.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6d404e48a37707fb85892c3a278a7bd5",
"text": "I can only imagine the regulatory difficulty you're going through, and for that I empathize. First, bankers everywhere mostly do not know if a bank policy is due to regulation or internal rules. Other banks may be more flexible, but only the most reputable should be used. Re Paypal, they first deposit 1 USD and then withdraw it, but things may be different in Cyprus. Also, Paypal now has debit cards, so if Paypal is permitted to issue cards in Russia then it could presumably be used in Cyprus. Again, local regulation notwithstanding. Paypal now has phone support at the very back of their site, so I suggest a call to them. In countries that permit, Western Union can be used to wire money into an account from cash. The Bitcoin route should be used as a last resort. You could wake up tomorrow losting 25% easy. The regulations are a distant second compared to this problem. With all of the above methods, there will be varying delays from days to weeks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b8d065e69a98f74f817903bb272f219",
"text": "Is it liable for taxation in India? Taxation does not depend on whether to transfer money to India or keep it in GCC. It depends on your tax status. In a given Financial year; 1st April to 31st March, if you are outside of India for more than 182 days, your are Non-Resident Indian, NRI for tax purposes. If you are NRI, income earned outside of India is not taxable in India [even if you transfer the funds to India]. If you are not an NRI, you income in GCC will be taxable in India [Even if you keep the money in GCC]. We both send our salary into a friends account in India and then transfer an amount to our own accounts This is an incorrect practise, If you are NRI, you should not be holding a Savings account, it should be converted into NRO and you can if you want open an NRE account. For your friend where you are transferring money, if there is an income tax audit, there would be quite a few questions asked and your friend has to establish and keep records that this is not GIFT, but more of a convenience agreement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49b52fa20a3fd890838958f5ba4230e0",
"text": "I use xoom.com to transfer money to India. I've been using them for over 2 years now, they are the fastest and the cheapest for me (the funds are usually available the same day). They seem to have added a lot of European countries to their list. Definitely worth a shot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b0575f84d48dc745cabb99f48049fcd",
"text": "No, in your situation it is not possible. Mostly, only three types of accounts are available to individuals: So, a complete foreigner can open account in India, only if he is working in India, a type of Savings account, and that account too will be linked to his resident status. If he leaves work, he needs to close this account. Edit: There are business accounts, and current accounts, but those are available only to businesses. Further read at SBI gives a good snapshot",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "118b7cdb68dfddbd40d4ac3fb00c6b6b",
"text": "Yes, you can transfer money to your account, any bank will do it. The conversion charges will be there i.e. the diff between USD and the rate at which the bank sells it, usually Rs. 2/-, appx. In addition, transaction charge (not very high). As for taking from friends & repaying in India, check UAE tax treatement for taking money from friends (is it considered as your income & are you liable for taxes). As for giving back, get some documentation done as a loan, otherwise your friends may be considered to be taking gift/consideration/income from you and taxed. Most straight forward way is to transfer the money from your mother's account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb9a03241f0728bbb281cd981a8ef674",
"text": "Depending on how tech savvy your client is you could potentially use bitcoin. There is some take of indian regulators stopping bitcoin exchanges, meaning it might be hard to get your money out in your local country but the lack of fees to transfer and not getting killed on the exchange rate every time has a huge impact, especially if your individual transaction sizes are not huge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d494f736c2fe7c90d149b3ec3bbbcc0f",
"text": "There are several ways to minimize the international wire transfer fees: Transfer less frequently and larger amounts. The fees are usually flat, so transferring larger amounts lowers the fee percentage. 3% is a lot. In big banks, receiving is usually ~$15. If you transfer $1000 at a time, its 1.5%, if you transfer $10000 - it's much less, accordingly. If you have the time - have them send you checks (in US dollars) instead of wire transferring. It will be on hold for some time (up to a couple of weeks maybe), but will be totally free for you. I know that many banks have either free send and/or receive. I know that ETrade provides this service for free. My credit union provides if for free based on the relationship level, I have a mortgage with them now, so I don't pay any fees at all, including for wire transfer. Consider other options, like Western Union. Those may cost more for the sender (not necessarily though), but will be free for the receiver. You can get the money in cash, or checks, which you can just deposit on your regular bank account. For smaller amounts, it should be much cheaper than wire transfer, for example - sending $500 to India costs $10, while wire transfer is $30.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41ee3561cef74975b242ec5e0bf15f49",
"text": "Online money transfer facility from Axis Remit is a quick and easy way to transfer money from USA to India. AxisRemit is Axis Bank's flagship inward remittance service enables you to transfer money to your beneficiaries through the most efficient channels like online money transfer, exchange houses and money transfer operators.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f013f5a938fb5841e96cabab0961a6a8",
"text": "Most of the people need to remit the money to their precious persons like family, friends and also others. Now a days this type of transmission is simple by Etawakal online money transfer than other remittance services. Etawakal is reliable, safe and secure. http://tawakalexpress.net/Etawakal.aspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb5105cef9bf56d1edb545ff9441e282",
"text": "The data provided in your question is irrelevant. The data that you provided in the comments (that you're physically present in the US while doing the work) is the only relevant information needed to answer your question. You will need to pay taxes in the US for the earnings. The company invoicing the US client will also need to pay taxes in the US for its earnings from these invoices. You can transfer between bank accounts and deposit whatever you want anywhere you want, no-one cares (with respect to the US taxes, check with Indian tax accountant about Indian requirements).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc0017f6aaccc478a622e3aece4e947",
"text": "very simple. RBI has stopped connecting Indian Bank's to Paypal, for deposit or withdrawal. You need to use a third party website (Online wallet etc) to send whatever money you have in the Paypal account. Connect your Bank account with the third party website, and withdraw the money",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56a51834c97003723af0acd774fa6198",
"text": "My account is with Indian Bank, if that's relevant. Indian Bank already has SWIFT BIC. Is there any way I can receive such international transfers in my account if the bank branch itself is not SWIFT enabled? The Branch need not be SWIFT enabled. However the Bank needs to be SWIFT enabled. Indian Bank is SWIFT enabled and has several Correspondent Banks in US. See this link on Indian Bank Website Select USD as filter in bottom page. It will list quite a few Banks that are correspondent to the Indian Bank. Click on the Link and it will give you more details. For example with Citi Bank as Correspondent. In the Beneficiary account details fill in your account details etc and send this to the company and they should be able to send you a payment based on this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2fe749117d26a925f975f93acdcd93a",
"text": "\"For the financial year 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015, as you have [or will be] spent more than 182 days outside India, you would be treated as \"\"Non-Resident\"\" [NRI] for tax purposes. If you are NRI Show my Kuwaiti Income in my Income Tax Return? Pay any tax on the money that I am sending to savings bank accounts in India You need not Pay Tax on your income outside India. i.e. there is no tax obligation created. It cannot be declared in Tax Returns. However any interest you earn on the money deposited in India would be subject to taxes. Will my wife have to show the income and/or pay the income tax on the money that I am sending to her savings bank accounts? There is no Income to you wife [Income is something you earn] and hence its out of scope from Income Tax act. It would fall under gift tax rules. As per Gift Tax one can transfer unlimited funds between close relatives. Hence there is No tax. It would be better if you open an NRO/NRE account and transfer funds into that account\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "486420b297d6d92642fa8c90ebcd3bc2",
"text": "\"Can you tell me please, is it really hard to make international wire transfer for payment my job and can i resolve this problem without using third party services? This is mostly a barrier, the form at times is quite complicated. For Russia, one has to enter \"\"Purpose of remittance\"\" ... at times select intermediate banks, give BIC and other details. This can become unnerving to people who are not used to it. The other option you can try is set-up a credit card gateway and get funds via cards.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb65fbcda1058e07dad52530007dd1f5",
"text": "If you're in the UK, there's a free service here that lets you trace lost bank accounts. If you're in a different country, try Googling to see if that country has a similar service.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ce784b40c6b431d48c8e292aa4b79aea
|
Proper etiquette for loans from friends
|
[
{
"docid": "231c8283c9656c1c1a24480712f7b79b",
"text": "The standard approach is to reach an agreement and put it in writing. What you agree upon is up to you, but in the US if you want to avoid gift taxes larger loans need to be properly documented and must charge at least a certain minimal interest rate. (Or at least you must declare and be taxed upon that minimal income even if you don't actually charge it. Last I looked, the federal requirement was somewhere under 0.3%, so this isn't usually an issue. There may also be state rules.) When doing business with friends, treat it as business first, friendship second. Otherwise you risk losing both money and friendship. Regarding what rate to charge: That is something you two have to negotiate, based on how much the borrower needs the money, how much lending the money puts the lender at risk, how generous each is feeling, etc. Sorry, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. What I charge (or insist on paying to) my brother might be different from what I charge my cousin, or a co-worker, or best friend, or... If both parties think it's fair, it's fair. If you can't reach an agreement, of course, the loan doesn't happen.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d8793d06c2f638210aad99902e013eb1",
"text": "Banks worry that the large gift might be a loan that is ultimately expected to be repaid. If so, that affects the cash flow of the recipient, and makes it more difficult to make the mortgage payments to the bank. In some cases, of course, it is an informal loan: Dad advances a large $X to son to use as a downpayent, but does not charge interest and the expectation is that the money will be returned in smaller chunks as and when the son can afford to repay Dad. In some cases, Dad truly means it as a gift, but son feels an obligation to repay the money, if not explicitly, then by paying for the first few months of Dad's nursing home stay, etc. So, banks like to have an explicit document such as a copy of a letter from Dad saying that this money is a gift, and some assurance that this is on the up and up. If the amount is larger than the maximum gift that can be given each year without having to file a gift tax return, then some assurance that a gift tax return will be filed is helpful. Mentioning this in the letter is good: it indicates that there are no secret handshakes or secret agreements to the effect that this is in fact a loan, with or without regular repayments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "135b37b7948dbd97c8af6da4003abfa7",
"text": "In terms of preserving good relationships one approach is to charge a nominal rate of interest. maybe a few percent of the total and agree a time when it should be paid back. This may actually make them feel better about borrowing them money, especially, especially if it is something like business loan or buying a house or car. If they need the money for a real crisis and they have no clear strategy for paying it back then it may just be better all around if you make it clear that it is a gift. What you don't want to do is set up a situation where you are creating unnecessary problems down the road and that will very much depend on your individual relationship and how seriously you take the loan. Here it is important that you are completely open and honest about the arrangement so take the time to make sure that both parties understand exactly what they expect from each other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b54546c7819bdf923482fc996944adb5",
"text": "\"Does the money lending between us need to be reported in our tax reports? No. Will he be taxed more because of lending the money to me? Yes. Will I be taxed more because of borrowing the money from him? No. How shall we report it so as to minimize our taxes? You cannot. What is reported on your tax returns is the income. A loan is not an income, so nothing gets reported. However, when you repay the loan, assuming it has interest, the lender has income: the interest. Interest income is reported on schedule B of the regular (1040/1040A) tax return (or, in the case of non-resident for tax purposes, on line 9 of 1040NR). It is taxed as ordinary income, and since you're both foreigners - the lender should look into the treaty provisions that might be relevant. Generally it is not exempt from taxable income based on treaty exemptions for students (which is only for earned income), but there might be other rules in the treaty regarding interest income. If there's no (fair market or higher) interest, then there's \"\"assumed\"\" interest at the IRS mandated rates, which is considered a gift. If it amounts to more than the yearly gift exemption, the lender may be liable for gift tax (depending on the lender's and your status, and again - see treaties). \"\"Loan\"\" without an obligation to repay and without actual repaying will also be considered a gift for tax purposes. If the lender has no intentions of having the loan repaid (i.e.: making a gift), it will be better to pay your tuition bills instead of actually giving you the money: tuition is exempt from gift tax. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state for a proper tax advice on this issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41f0b1acb57b7544bd49bad2965c8fb9",
"text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"",
"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": "7f095485f8cb5da37475c27ba9a17d51",
"text": "I say to always say yes when asked to loan money to a friend or family member as long as you have the money to do it with. That is the key: having th emoney to do it with. And - don't expect to get it back ever. If you do, great. When you don't, your expectation was met. Although not often, I've lent money to friends and most of the time have been paid back. $10, $300, more. For the times when I was not, I do remember but I don't hold it against the person. Money is only money, after all. Friends are precious and worthy of your aid, support, and respect. If they weren't, then one must ask if they are really a friend. - I have also had to borrow money once for a non-trivial amount. My family, who can easily afford it, refused but a friend helped me at a critical juncture. I offered to make a contract but my friend said no, pay me back when you can. I have tried to start paying back a couple of times but my friend refused telling me to wait until I was more financially stable. - If I am ever lucky enough to be in the position my friend is in, I will emulate this behavior and do the very same thing - and love doing it all the while.",
"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": "1ea12d08b27c305c365845315d008efb",
"text": "This is called a fraudulent conveyance because its purpose is to prevent a creditor from getting repaid. It is subject to claw back under US law, which is a fancy way of saying that your friend will have to pay the bank back. Most jurisdictions have similar laws. It is probably a crime as well, but that varies by jurisdiction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab8e356652d6730d50ad291d5fb51e4c",
"text": "The big problem with lending money to friends and family is that if things go sour with the deal than you can lose something a lot more valuable than the money associated with the deal. As a result of that I no longer lend money to friends and family. If I have the extra money available and I know someone is really in need I'll give them the money no strings attached before I'll lend any. If they decide to give back the amount given at some point in the future so be it, but there will be no expectations. Thanksgiving dinner just has a different taste to it when someone at the table owes someone else money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f57a878a88292aa455a9f951063ebb0",
"text": "Standard advice for these scenarios: Stay out of it unless asked specifically for advice, and even then, be wary of being too harsh. You'll damage your relationship with your friend if you get involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5620c024950487dff9344ee03c171ec5",
"text": "I came across such a situation and I am still facing it. My friend borrowed my credit card for his expenses as he had misplaced his debit card and for the time being had asked for my credit card to handle the expenses he does. He paid for initial 2 months and then was not able to make payments, mainly due to not being able to arrange money or if it was a contri party, he would collect cash from friends but again spend the same. Months passes by... the bill had come upto 65k and calls from bank and other respective organizations Finally my dad came into picture and slowly the issue is resolving he has paid 50K remaining is still pending. So basically, the reason I shared this part of story was he is my Best friend and in order to not spoil our friendship I did not want to take any such step which would later on affect our friendship. This completely depends on the individuals how they react to the situation. Keeping Ego, superiority, favour sort of feelings and words apart things can be resolved between friends. You do not know what is the situation on the other side. Probably you can connect with him ask him to explain you why is not able to pay the debts and take action accordingly. If he is not able to provide a proper reason then you may take some actions like mentioned in initial answers, run after the assets he own or anything else.Stay Calm and patient. Do not take any such step which you would regret later on...!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edba9615a6bb1cd4c4198604e9497c9d",
"text": "If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d1cac00c18cae042e4afd946a53db0",
"text": "You should only loan money to friends or relatives if you are fully accepting the possibility of never ever getting that money back. And in this situation it can happen that you will be forced to give him a very large loan if something bad ever happens to him. (Paying the monthly rates instead of him and expecting he will someday pay it back to you is technically the same as loaning him money). Something might happen in the future which will result in him not paying his monthly payments. Maybe not now, but in 5 years. Or 10. The economy might change, he might be out of a job, his personal values might change. A house mortgage is long term, and during that time a lot can happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b74b01f700c046fa5658bca7ef5ff164",
"text": "Legally, I can't find any reason that the LLC could not lend money to an individual. However, I believe the simplest course of action is to first distribute money from your company to your personal account, and then make it a personal loan. Whether the loan is done through the business or personally, financially I don't think there is much difference as to which bucket the interest income goes into, since your business and personal income will all get lumped together anyway with a single person LLC. Even if your friend defaults on the loan, either the business or you personally will have the same burden of proof to meet that the loan was not a gift to begin with, and if that burden is met, the deduction can be taken from either side. If a debt goes bad the debtor may be required to report the debt as income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c06409db3a289957c3d619a503dadff6",
"text": "It's been a long time since I've used MS Money and/or Quickbooks (never Quicken), but I've used GnuCash over the past year or so. It works, but it does suffer from some usability problems. Some of the UI is clunky. Data entry sequences are a little harder than they should be. Reports could be a little prettier. But overall it does work, and it's the best I've found on linux. (I would definitely appreciate pointers to something better.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2bf3811a874388346e5ebd15485848de
|
Paying myself a dividend from ltd company
|
[
{
"docid": "0405c80b946e2a2c2c2ceae2b78ccae7",
"text": "In a simple case as the sole UK resident director/shareholder of a company, with that company as your only income, you are usually best paying yourself a salary of the maximum tax free amount allowed under your tax code (~£11k for most people at present). On this you will have to pay some employer and employee National Insurance (NI) contributions (totalling around £1000). Your salary/employer NI counts as an expense, so that is taken off the company profits. You then pay corporation tax on the remainder (20%). The first £5k you take as dividends is tax free, the remainder at a lower tax rate than the equivalent combined income tax/NI (starting at 7.5% instead of 20% tax plus employee plus employer NI), giving a significant saving compared to salaried income even after corporation tax. To declare and pay the tax, you would need to complete a self-assessment tax return. Your company will also need to file a return. The Contractor UK website, although aimed at IT contractors, has some very useful information on operating Ltd companies. That said, finances are rarely that simple so I would concur with the recommendation you engage an accountant, which is a tax-deductible expense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79d8a28c19435af5beeac567628d0ce8",
"text": "manage the company properly. If you aren't much aware about company rules and regulation or tax matters, get an accountant so that you don't mess up later. better off paying my self a dividend of 100% profit or as an employee? That depends on how much salary you intend to pay yourself, your dividend or how much business expenses you will incur while running the business. Generally speaking you are better off paying your self a minimum salary and pay the rest as dividends. But check out the dividend tax and the income tax you might need to pay and compare which situation you are better off. If you have a partner, using the dividend way will reduce your NI outgoes. ethical and legal? Ethically the dividend way might burn your conscience but it is perfectly legal way of doing things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2e776fb7b74820146fb41350cfb275e",
"text": "Adding to webdevduck's answer: Before you calculate your profits, you can pay money tax-free into a pension fund for the company director (that is you). Then if you pay yourself dividends, if you made lots of profit you don't have to pay it all as dividends. You can take some where the taxes are low, and then pay more money in later years. What you must NOT do is just take the money. The company may be yours, but the money isn't. It has to be paid as salary or dividend. (You can give the company director a loan, but that loan has to be repaid. Especially if a limited company goes bankrupt, the creditors would insist that loans from the company are repaid). After a bit more checking, here's the optimal approach, perfectly legal, expected and ethical: You pay yourself a salary of £676 per month. That's the point where you get all the advantages of national insurance without having to pay; above that you would have to pay 13.8% employers NI contributions and 12% employee's NI contributions, so for £100 salary the company has to pay £113.80 and you receive £88.00. Below £676 you pay nothing. You deduct the salary from your revenue, then you deduct all the deductible business costs (be wise in what you try to deduct), then you pay whatever you want into a pension fund. Well, up to I think £25,000 per year. The rest is profit. The company pays 19% corporation tax on profits. Then you pay yourself dividends. Any dividends until your income is £11,500 per year are tax free. Then the next £5,000 per year are tax free. Then any dividends until income + dividends = £45,000 per year is taxed at 7.5%. It's illegal to pay so much in dividends that the company can't pay its bills. Above £45,000 you decide if you want your money now and pay more tax, or wait and get it tax free. Every pound of dividend above £45,000 a year you pay 32.5% tax, but there is nobody forcing you to take the money. You can wait until business is bad, or you want a loooong holiday, or you retire. So at that time you will stay below £45,000 per year and pay only 7.5% tax.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "06eb0254bd4b3aea26db481f691fa063",
"text": "I believe so (that you can, not that you are greedy) I run my own business and, generally speaking, am 'charging' my company 40p per mile as per the quote above. I did not know about the ability to claim the shortfall, as it is not relevant to me, but it makes perfect sense and I'm sure that a phone call to HMRC will help you understand how to claim. As for the greedy question - personally I think that laws are there for a reason (both ways) so if there's money to be claimed - there's no reason not to do so, unless of course the hassle is greater than the potential gain. One last note - not sure exactly what the rules around this are, but I know that the allowance is not applicable for one's general commute and so if you're travelling to the same place over 40% of the time for more than two years you are no longer allowed to claim these miles.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68ef32bfccf785eb45abd36e22f3fe2c",
"text": "\"I think the £35K band applies to the \"\"dividend income\"\" not the \"\"dividend paid to you\"\", and so you would only actually get £31.5K (90% of £35K) in your pocket before the next tax band kicked in. If your company will only supplying large VAT registered entities, then register for VAT yourself and elect the Flat Rate scheme - depending on your area of business, given that you have no expenses, your company will get an extra 7% - 14% on its income for free. Your clients won't care that you charge them VAT because they'll claim it back. Finally, depending on what your company is for, beware of the dreaded IR35\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "101539eaf2a1c7edd0566ddfeec41f5f",
"text": "As an ordinary shareholder, yes you are protected from recourse by the debtors. The maximum amount you can lose is the amount you spent on the shares. The rules might change if you are an officer of the company and fraud is alleged, but ordinary stockholders are quite well protected. Why are you worried about this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb4dc2382fe36b9c9d01a1e44edaee35",
"text": "IANAL (and nor am I an accountant), so I can't give a definitive answer as to legality, but AFAIK, what you propose is legal. But what's the benefit? Avoiding corporation tax? It's simplistic – and costly – to think in terms like that. You need to run the numbers for different scenarios, and make a plan. You can end up ahead of the game precisely by choosing to pay some corporate tax each year. Really! Read on. One of the many reasons that self-employed Canadians sometimes opt for a corporate structure over being a sole proprietor is to be able to not pay themselves everything the company earns each year. This is especially important when a business has some really good years, and others, meh. Using the corporation to retain earnings can be more tax effective. Example: Imagine your corporation earns, net of accounting & other non-tax costs except for your draws, $120,000/year for 5 years, and $0 in year 6. Assume the business is your only source of income for those 6 years. Would you rather: Pay yourself the entire $120,000/yr in years 1-5, then $0 in year 6 (living off personal savings you hopefully accumulated earlier), subjecting the $120,000/yr to personal income tax only, leaving nothing in the corporation to be taxed? Very roughly speaking, assuming tax rates & brackets are level from year to year, and using this calculator (which simplifies certain things), then in Ontario, then you'd net ~$84,878/yr for years 1-5, and $0 in year 6. Overall, you realized $424,390. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600,000 was 29.26%. vs. Pay yourself only $100,000/yr in years 1-5, leaving $20,000/yr subject to corporation tax. Assuming a 15.5% combined federal/provincial corporate tax rate (includes the small business deduction), then the corp. is left with $16,900/yr to add to retained earnings in years 1-5. In year 6, the corp. has $84,500 in retained earnings to be distributed to you, the sole owner, as a dividend (of the non-eligible kind.) Again, very roughly speaking, you'd personally net $73,560/yr in years 1-5, and then on the $84,500 dividend in year 6, you'd net $73,658. Overall, you realized $441,458. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600K was 26.42%. i.e. Scenario 2, which spreads the income out over the six years, saved 2.84% in tax, or $14,400. Smoothing out your income is also a prudent thing to do. Would you rather find yourself in year 6, having no clients and no revenue, with nothing left to draw on? Or would you rather the company had saved money from the good years to pay you in the lean one?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d05fc33bb41d52ddcd24e1d0ce1c13e9",
"text": "Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70d32f3db9a82272eb3e45a684f27220",
"text": "\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f07ac4680194626215deef6479418a33",
"text": "\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f6fc677d6cb6bd6df28c89bea847238",
"text": "Another person, not a shareholder or director, will be treated as when a bank loans you money. You are loaning out money and you are sort of getting interest income out of it or some other benefit, which needs to be put down in you company's annual return. Full source on the HMRC website. But for a shareholder or director is different matter. Check the HMRC source for sure and check with your accountant, if you have one. If you owe your company money You or your company may have to pay tax if you take a director’s loan. Your personal and company tax responsibilities depend on how the loan is settled. You also need to check if you have extra tax responsibilities if: If the loan was more than £10,000 (£5,000 in 2013-14) If you’re a shareholder and director and you owe your company more than £10,000 (£5,000 in 2013 to 2014) at any time in the year, your company must: You must report the loan on your personal Self Assessment tax return. You may have to pay tax on the loan at the official rate of interest. If you paid interest below the official rate If you’re a shareholder and director, your company must: You must report the interest on your personal Self Assessment tax return. You may have to pay tax on the difference between the official rate and the rate you paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3d42480931d9f5d13947a15a0739972",
"text": "Do you realise that the examples you have given are for stock splits not for dividends, that is why the date payable is before the ex-date for the split. The payments for the split occur on 30th June and the first day the stock trades with the new split is on the next trading day, being the ex-date, 1st July.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "743d2e65a512c9a50e965e0a1b4a80f0",
"text": "\"Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price. There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year. Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price. Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves. For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year. These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other \"\"Partnership\"\" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash. Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement. The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85b1a08cb97369960f092c4dede5bb8d",
"text": "Dividends are a form of passive income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1208e4de07e5a70118a6b83770ea03e",
"text": "\"If you are using software like QuickBooks (or even just using spreadsheets or tracking this without software) use two Equity accounts, something like \"\"Capital Contributions\"\" and \"\"Capital Distributions\"\" When you write a personal check to the company, the money goes into the company's checking account and also increases the Capital Contribution account in accordance with double-entry accounting practices. When the company has enough retained earnings to pay you back, you use the Capital Distributions equity account and just write yourself a check. You can also make general journal entries every year to zero out or balance your two capital accounts with Retained Earnings, which (I think) is an automatically generated Equity account in QuickBooks. If this sounds too complex, you could also just use a single \"\"Capital Contributions and Distributions\"\" equity account for your contributions and distributions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "81fc4819252bbfa4014d3241c01a80a7",
"text": "You could hold a long position in some company XXXX and then short your own shares (assuming your broker will let you do that). The dividend that would have gone to you would then go to whoever is holding the shares you short sold. You just don't get a dividend. If you're going to short in a smart way... do it on a stock you otherwise believe in, but use it to minimize the pull-backs on the way up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04ef57511c2c2d392fbe137ef253607a",
"text": "They're not going to look very hard at the asset value (except for actual cash in the bank), which doesn't bear much relationship to the real value of the company. More likely they will look at the last three years' earnings and choose a target P/E ratio based on that. The owner's share depends entirely on how much of the business they choose to sell. If the business is worth $60M and they want to raise $20M for themselves, then that means selling 33% of the company. If they want to raise $20M for the business as well, then that means selling half the company and retaining ownership of the other half, which is now worth $80M because of the cash infusion. But many stock exchanges will have minimum requirements for the percentage of the shares that are trading freely, so they will have to sell at least that much.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
80b67ab606d60956364b431bd18c4a99
|
Calculating the total capital of a company?
|
[
{
"docid": "3dc5f5f23a4b4856d8e486c3e097bb7f",
"text": "\"I was wondering how do we calculate the total capital of a company? Which items should I look for in the financial statements? Total capital usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and total shareholder equity; both of these items can be found on the company's balance sheet. This is one of the calculations that's traditionally used when determining a company's return on capital. I'll use the balance sheet from Gilead Sciences' (GILD) 2012 10-K form as an example. Net long-term debt was $7,054,555,000 and total stockholder equity was $9,550,869,000 which should give a grand total of $16,605,424,000 for total capital. (I know you can do the math, but I always find an example helpful if it uses realistic numbers). You may sometimes hear the term \"\"total capital\"\" referring to \"\"total capital stock\"\" or \"\"total capital assets,\"\" in which case it may be referring to physical capital, i.e. assets like inventory, PP&E, etc., instead of financial capital/leverage. And how do I calculate notes payable? Is the same as accounts payable? As the word \"\"payable\"\" suggests, both are liabilities. However, I've always been taught that accounts payable are debts a business owes to its suppliers, while notes payable are debts a business owes to banks and other institutions with which it has signed a formal agreement and which use formal debt instruments, e.g. a loan contract. This definition seems to match various articles I found online. On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as \"\"Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net\"\" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts. Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called \"\"Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt\"\" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ba3ab29e2ff7613adc6491c8165e6fc",
"text": "\"Total Capital This is a very old fashioned term that really is mostly only used in the finance industry today, like when everyone was obsessed with \"\"bank capital\"\". Total Capital = Preferred Equity + Common Equity + Liabilities True blue preferred shares are almost only used by financial companies, banks specifically. The more modern ones that convert to common are used by all other companies. Notes Payable This is another old fashioned term that now carries a different meaning in Generally Accepted Account Principles (GAAP). The oldest definition of a note or a promissory note is a promise to pay a fixed amount of money on a specific date. This has been modified to resemble more a bond and evolved into the zero coupon bond, a bond that makes no cash interest payments but makes one final payment that includes principal & interest. A bank note, like a One Dollar bill, is a note that pays something, in this case One Dollar, never (technically, the repayment date is simply not specified in the contract). While it pays One Dollar, it never pays it back, so it has a constant value of One Dollar. The constant nature, inflation notwithstanding, is what makes bank notes the preferred medium of exchange. GAAP has taken its' own definition to mean any debt payable within 12 months, as it is a current (<12 months) liability.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a4191ced35751269bb3a494a5569a7d",
"text": "Opening capital = opening assests-opening liabilities",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a8ee07f460a8a1fe9480e40afe4f4815",
"text": "Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abf616c3123c474f8459d5c623759525",
"text": "\"Capitalization rate and \"\"Net Profit margin\"\" are two different things. In Capitalization rate note that we are taking the \"\"total value\"\" in the denominator and in Net profit margin we are taking \"\"Revenue/Sales\"\". Capitalization Rate: Capitalization Rate = Yearly Income/Total Value For example (from Investopedia: ) if Stephane buys a property that will generate $125,000 per year and he pays $900,000 for it, the cap rate is: 125,000/900,000 = 13.89%. Net Profit margin: Net Profit margin = Net Profit/Revenue For example (from finance formulas): A company's income statement shows a net income of $1 million and operating revenues of $25 million. By applying the formula, $1 million divided by $25 million would result in a net profit margin of 4%. Although the formula is simplistic, applying the concept is important in that 4% of sales will result in after tax profit.\"",
"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": "c7487e4e9f05ef9095d429fe366d9cc5",
"text": "The accounting equation, in short, is: This can be further broken down into: Which can be further broken down into: The GnuCash equation is right, though I would substitute the word equity in that equation with a more-specific paid-in capital. Equity is (simply put) made up of 2 parts: shareholders' equity and retained earnings. Shareholders' equity is the amount invested by shareholders. Retained earnings is the amount earned by the business on behalf of the shareholders. Retained earnings is directly affected by your net income (which is income minus expenses). An increase in income will result in an increase in retained earnings. This must be balanced somewhere. Usually an increase in an asset. It may also be balanced by a decrease in equity. Likewise, increase in expenses will result in a decrease in retained earnings, which must also be balanced.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fd43b5cb4ac9297a55a72b3fca65663",
"text": "cash isn't part of changes in working capital calculation - dont include it in current assets. *edit - Also to answer a question you didn't ask, subtracting cash doesn't skew the multiples. If cash really is that excess, the market cap will reflect a large cash position, thus adding it all back into EV. Think of apple as a good example. If they theoretically would dividend out all the cash, market cap would drop and so would EV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "995e19b8e36871967e758402f14743c4",
"text": "That's all? What's the total shares outstanding? It's on thing is it's 100,000 and another if it's 10,000,000. What's the capitalization? If you don't know, check tech crunch and/or read the about section of your website. Having a bit of experience, my guess would be 10,000,000 (or much much more). Series A capitalization usually goes off at $1. If you are not in a management, sales, production or technology role .. you may not benefit much from the growth. So if you want to, watch your internal job postings and try to move up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1f8e1e935ad365e016e2e6468cf4797",
"text": "Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23b2797867eb8b76bf95504624c9fbc",
"text": "\"A Bloomberg terminal connected to Excel provides the value correcting splits, dividends, etc. Problem is it cost around $25,000. Another one which is free and I think that takes care of corporate action is \"\"quandl.com\"\". See an example here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb6523e22504bb769d3d28f4eef746a",
"text": "It took me a while to understand the concept, so I'll break it down as best as I can. There are three parts to the accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity We'll look at this in two ways 1. As a business owner you invest (say) 10,000 USD into your bank. The entry would be: Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Contributions for 10,000 In this case, you have assets of 10,000 from your deposit, but it is due to owner contributions and not business transactions. Another example (say a sale): Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Sales for 10,000 Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Liabilities: Deposits for 10,000 Deposits are a banking term to reflect a bank's obligation to return the amount on demand (though the bank has free reign with it, see fractional banking) You will NEVER debit or credit your bank as it is assumed you will be storing your money there, note bank reconciliation. Hope this helps, comment with any more questions.",
"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": "c1140caa8335ae427e6326430838e159",
"text": "\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \"\"worth.\"\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \"\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\"\" It can be viewed as \"\"if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8399543fe9b611cc89a88cecf78f9c74",
"text": "It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here: What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows? In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a12da22d330b7e220f7cd8e070ac02ec",
"text": "\"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a14bffe08685cbcd145cdf1e51818c1e",
"text": "Say the company has created 500 shares [or whatever number]. You have 10 shares [equivalent of 2%]. Now when new capital is needed, generally more shares are created. Say they create 100 more shares and sell it to venture capital to raise funds. After this happens; Total Shares: 500+100 = 600 You own: 10 shares Your Ownership % = 1.66% down from 2% Like wise for other older shareholder. The New Venture guy gets 16.66% of ownership. More funds would mean more growth and overall the value of your 10 shares would be more depending on the valuation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "399db64a304c7fc66c5a72efd53d8696",
"text": "How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
940d8ce1f87fddd89f2ab22d07f205ae
|
What are the implications of a corporate stock repurchase or share buyback program?
|
[
{
"docid": "396521793f12b66d59c2c86a671360b7",
"text": "Ignoring taxes, a share repurchase has exactly the same effect on the company and the shareholders' wealth as a cash dividend. In either case, the company is disbursing cash to its shareholders; in the former, in exchange for shares which shareholders happen to be selling on the market at the time; in the latter, equally to all shareholders. For those shareholders who do not happen to be selling their shares, a share repurchase by a company is equivalent to a shareholder's reinvestment of a cash dividend in additional shares of the same company. The only difference is the total number of shares left outstanding. Your shares after a share buyback represent ownership of a greater fraction of the company, since in effect the company is buying out other shareholders on your behalf. Theoretically, a share buyback leaves the price of the stock unchanged, whereas a cash dividend tends to reduce the price of the stock by exactly the amount of the dividend, (notwithstanding underlying earnings.) This is because a share buyback concentrates your ownership in the company, but at the same time, the company as a whole is devalued by the exact amount of cash disbursed to buy back shares. Taxwise, a share buyback generally allows you to treat your share of the company's profits as capital gains---and quite possibly defer taxes on it as long as you own the stock. You usually have to pay taxes on dividends at the time they are paid. However, dividends are sometimes seen as instilling discipline in management, because it's a very public and obvious sign of distress for a company to cut its dividend, whereas a share repurchase plan can often be quietly withdrawn without drawing that much attention. A third alternative to a dividend or a share repurchase is for the company to find profitable projects to reinvest its earnings in, and attempt to grow the company as a whole (in the hopes of even greater earnings in the future) rather than distribute current earnings back to shareholders. (A company may alse use its earnings to pay down or repurchase debt, as well.) As to your second question, the SEC has certain rules that regulate the timing and price of share repurchases on the open market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91bd886c31ebc7df39bccc2080cfe3f5",
"text": "A board authorizes the repurchase of shares because they feel the stock in undervalued. The hope is that the stocks will rise either directly by their repurchase, or in the near term due to the realization that the company is in better shape then the market thought. Eventually those shares will be resold back into the market thus bring in more cash at a later date. They will set limits on them maximum they will pay, they will also spread the repurchases out over a time period so they don't overwhelm the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84a212b7e101d08456f62747b65e3c5a",
"text": "The future shares will be fewer in number, yet have claim to less cash in the bank. All in all, there's little reason the shares would rise in value. Say there are 1M shares, trading at $10. Market cap is $10M of course. Now, there happens to be $2M cash in the bank so each share had about $2 cash. By taking the $2M and buying 200K shares, 800K shares remain, but why would you think they'd be valued at $12.50? The same $10 value per share is now an $8M market cap as $2M has been disbursed, no less so than if it were given out in a dividend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dcf27f71de383975b0639ac33ada7d5",
"text": "the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dd385fa0c62d0d2a5e1d11923c325f7",
"text": "A stock buy back reduces the number of stocks available on the open market. Since stocks are literally a share in ownership a buy back of the stock then when the company repurchases it has the effect of increasing the percent of ownership of the company of each stock. Zynga has a Market Cap of ~1810M so a 200M buy back will increase the ownership value of each stock by ~12%. This has had the effect of an immediate stock price bump of around 12% which is to be expected as the value becomes the expected post buyback value. However long term gains will require Zynga to turn around their business. This bump will only be sustainable if they can. If their business continues to decline then its stock price will continue to slide. There are some who would rather see Zynga invest that 200m in getting a new product to market to bring revenues up rather than spending precious capital on a plan to temporarily bump a stock that is headed towards the floor. If on the other hand the revenue is poised to recover and the company has the excess capitol buying back stock low is a great way to get the most back for your shareholders bucks. Can they repurchase at any price and any time? They can write a buy order for any price at any time in the future, though they have some restrictions from the SEC mostly involving disclosures. But it is up to the sellers to choose to sell at that price. If they execute the buy back at a rate comparable to market rate then they are more likely to get takers than if they attempt to buy it back at a significant reduction from market price. So since today(10-25-2012) the it is selling for ~2.30 A buy order for 2.30 is going to get more action than one at 2.00. Investors will often look at the companies buy back offer for a company in decline(like Zynga has been) as the true value of the company. If so then a lowball buyback offer could add downward pressure on the stock price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eeb476540810014f56d055b895dba62b",
"text": "In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ff5cb24583d12967d4db5e7d7eea81",
"text": "Buybacks do not increase the company's value. Cash is traded for outstanding shares. This is similar to a dividend, but instead of cash, investors receive a rising share-price. Whether an investor prefers a cash dividend or capital gains is less important than the outcome that their investment is gaining value for them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa95e1979b11c80f337daceb60d0ca40",
"text": "They have been changing over Immelts tenor. Didn't know he was stepping down though. Share buybacks can be for a variety of reasons. They feel stock price is undervalued, they want to support their current shareholders, debt is cheap so they can change their wacc, they prefer to return capital in a way that does not increase expected dividends in the future (something about dividends being sticky, and the a cut in dividends Make it look like company is doing bad), etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd460a8da0e084553e5cbf9e9a7d4cf0",
"text": "\"Repurchase agreements are a way of financing a security position. You have a collateralized loan where you give your security in exchange for cash. Let's say you have a 10 year Treasury note paying 3.5% while the 1-week repurchase rate is 0.5%. You loan the security to someone with a promise to repurchase it from them some time in the future. You collect the 3.5% coupon and you pay the 0.5% interest. Clearly it makes no sense for someone to collect interest on money and also collect coupon payments. And for the counter-party it makes no sense to be not getting coupon payments and also to be paying interest. This how one website explains the process: During the transaction, any coupon payments that come due belong to the legal owner, the \"\"borrower.\"\" However, when this happens, a cash amount equal to the coupon is paid to the original owner, this is called \"\"manufactured payment.\"\" In order to avoid the tax payment on the coupon, some institutions will repo the security to a tax exempt entity and receive the manufactured payment and avoid the tax (\"\"coupon washing\"\") I find this unequivocal description to be the clearest During the life of the transaction the market risk and the credit risk of the collateral remain with the seller. (Because he has agreed to repurchase the asset for an agreed sum of money at maturity). Provided the trade is correctly documented if the collateral has a coupon payment during the life of the repo the buyer is obliged to pay this to the seller.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eda6724430f8b24f3d39f71ef8ef4afa",
"text": "\"Private companies often \"\"make the market\"\" for their own stock. So they may offer to buy back so many shares a year, give staff the option to sell stock back after so many years, etc. But private companies can have their own restrictions. They can, for instance, forbid secondary trading or explicitly limit voting stock to family members. Ostensibly, someone could sell a big chunk of a company for whatever price they wanted (unless it was prohibited). For tax purposes, IRS will come after you if you get a bunch of value for less than you paid for. It is not an unheard of way to transfer wealth, but a dollar? Probably just gift it. But I'm not a tax attorney... But is absolutely not the same kind of price transparency, or price movement, that you see in public stock, you are correct. Larger private companies may have secondary markets that are still less transparent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00b7e44ea1abc696fea6ad47c7ad1af1",
"text": "A Breakdown of Stock Buy Backs has this bottom line on it: Are share buybacks good or bad? As is so often the case in finance, the question may not have a definitive answer. If a stock is undervalued and a buyback truly represents the best possible investment for a company, the buyback - and its effects - can be viewed as a positive sign for shareholders. Watch out, however, if a company is merely using buybacks to prop up ratios, provide short-term relief to an ailing stock price or to get out from under excessive dilution. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/041702.asp#ixzz3ZHdOf2dJ What is the reason that a company like AAPL is buying back its own shares? Offsetting dilution would be my main thought here as many employees may exercise options putting more stock out there that the company buys back stock to balance things. Does it have too much cash and it doesn't know what to do with it? No as it could do dividends if it wanted to give it back to investors. So it is returning the cash back to investors? Not quite. While some investors may get cash from Apple, I'd suspect most shareholders aren't likely to see cash unless they are selling their shares so I wouldn't say yes to this without qualification. At the same time, the treasury shares Apple has can be used to give options to employees or be used in acquisitions for a couple of other purposes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f78be2f8b571feb3fbeefc80e83873a0",
"text": "\"After the initial public offering, the company can raise money by selling more stock (equity financing) or selling debt (e.g. borrowing money). If a company's stock price is high, they can raise money with equity financing on more favorable terms. When companies raise money with equity financing, they create new shares and dilute the existing shareholders, so the number of shares outstanding is not fixed. Companies can also return money to shareholders by buying their own equity, and this is called a share repurchase. It's best for companies to repurchase their shared when their stock price is low, but \"\"American companies have a terrible track record of buying their own shares high and selling them low.\"\" The management of a company typically likes a rising stock price, so their stock options are more valuable and they can justify bigger pay packages.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbb3d32ea4121d054ca4956be87ef97",
"text": "You might be right about that, but your previous posts don't say that. In just the last one you said: >Because buyback decreases shares outstanding it **also decreases the company's total future dividend payouts as well** This is indicating that you believe there is a difference somehow, no?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5940542385987805856c472698a2ed76",
"text": "\"A retraction privilege is a right extended to the shareholder that allows such shareholder to demand repayment of the principal. If one exercises the right to retract, the shares are exchanged for principal plus a sweetener and/or less a penalty. The requirement to provided matched shares means that the shares purchased plus those matched by the employer only have retraction privileges. Unmatched shares do not. To be certain, it's always best to read all contracts, but in essence, this is a way to \"\"cash out\"\" of the preferred shares. The consent to resale is a power granted to the holder over the corporation to resell the retracted shares. If it's granted, the corporation can sell to another party; if not, the corporation will have to retire the shares and issue new shares to maintain the previous number of shares outstanding. It is likely that withholding consent has a penalty, and/or granting consent has a sweetener.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26c9516ead5871137bea53a5fa681c68",
"text": "\"I think you have to go back to [this HBR article](https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity) to really understand: TLDR: Buybacks boost CEO pay and hurt the long term value of companies. But I'm not convinced that they're \"\"the root of inequality\"\" \"\"Consider the 449 companies in the S&P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings—a total of $2.4 trillion—to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees.\"\" \"\"Why are such massive resources being devoted to stock repurchases? Corporate executives give several reasons, which I will discuss later. But none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay, and in the short term buybacks drive up stock prices. \"\" \"\"Trillions of dollars that could have been spent on innovation and job creation in the U.S. economy over the past three decades have instead been used to buy back shares for what is effectively stock-price manipulation.\"\" \"\" Most are now done on the open market, and my research shows that they often come at the expense of investment in productive capabilities and, consequently, aren’t great for long-term shareholders.\"\" \"\"Research by the Academic-Industry Research Network, a nonprofit I cofounded and lead, shows that companies that do buybacks never resell the shares at higher prices.\"\" \"\"Many academics have warned that if U.S. companies don’t start investing much more in research and manufacturing capabilities, they cannot expect to remain competitive in a range of advanced technology industries. \"\" Specific examples: \"\"Pharmaceutical drugs. In response to complaints that U.S. drug prices are at least twice those in any other country, Pfizer and other U.S. pharmaceutical companies have argued that the profits from these high prices—enabled by a generous intellectual-property regime and lax price regulation—permit more R&D to be done in the United States than elsewhere. Yet from 2003 through 2012, Pfizer funneled an amount equal to 71% of its profits into buybacks, and an amount equal to 75% of its profits into dividends. In other words, it spent more on buybacks and dividends than it earned and tapped its capital reserves to help fund them. The reality is, Americans pay high drug prices so that major pharmaceutical companies can boost their stock prices and pad executive pay.\"\" \"\"Nanotechnology. Intel executives have long lobbied the U.S. government to increase spending on nanotechnology research. In 2005, Intel’s then-CEO, Craig R. Barrett, argued that “it will take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federal governments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology.” Yet from 2001, when the U.S. government launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), through 2013 Intel’s expenditures on buybacks were almost four times the total NNI budget.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04df881344f4003c31ca6fb7b9d516fe",
"text": "This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "202d5276e7d82b2d954b6fef63b10874",
"text": "Clawback Provision. Stock grants and options were either canceled or forfeited if they'd already been paid out. None of the execs became destitute because of it but the action was significant. Does anybody know how this compares to other cases of clawback?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "264bed25b9968e98677f2a7e1a29aa71",
"text": "\"The short version of JB King's excellent answer is that the company will typically buy back shares from the open market at market price. Sometimes, it will specifically target larger stakeholders, even controlling interests, who are making noise that they want to divest; if such an investor were to just dump their stock on the open market, neither the investor nor the company would be very happy with the resulting price collapse. In those cases, the company may offer an incentive price above market rates. In recent times, the investor looking to divest has often been the U.S. Government, who received stock in return for bailouts, and (with notable exceptions) turned a modest profit on many of them. Not enough to break even on the entire bailout, but the Government didn't just throw $700 billion in taxpayer money down a hole as conservative pundits would have you believe. In the '80s, a specific type of buy-back was made famous, called the \"\"leveraged buyout\"\". Basically, the company took out a huge loan against itself, and used that money to buy up all the company's publicly-traded shares, essentially becoming a private company. This became a popular tool among private equity groups, for better and worse.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f068810e0366ba6a9244f41e7f374873",
"text": "If a company doesn't take out loans to buy back the shares, is it still a bad move? I don't necessarily see the problem with companies retiring shares. If the shares of say Apple have a P/E ratio of 10 and the price to book value max of 1. Wouldn't it be a smart move by the company and the share holders assuming the projected net revenue will hold for at least ten years if not increase. I guess I don't know the true practice of buying back shares but at its core (could be more corrupt), I just don't see it as inherently bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e915d9930b0b14ce9ef866a579e94a4",
"text": "NASDAQ provides a very good IPO calendar as well for US listings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5c68f7a836d8c0a564ba43d7b56ddf61
|
What is the difference between equity and assets?
|
[
{
"docid": "8e67b6911d14a79d53b0b47b4fdd2ac1",
"text": "\"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being \"\"what my stuff is worth\"\" and equity and liabilities together as being \"\"who owns it.\"\" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "052392f5d66b263d95bf4d5e2838e319",
"text": "\"Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense). In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner. In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2. In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors. As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures. First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled \"\"The books of the family of Doe\"\", \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe\"\", or \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons\"\". Ask yourself, who \"\"owns\"\" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm. Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity. So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the \"\"partnership\"\" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called \"\"The books Children 1\"\", and classify the expense in that separate book. I advise using \"\"The family of Doe\"\" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries.\"",
"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": "1828d0f73127846d23d4eaf92134d5fc",
"text": "Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c96e617f294c24e6721181ac817418af",
"text": "First, A credit account is increased by credit transactions and decreased by debits. Liabilities is a credit account and should be a positive number. A debit account is increased by debit transactions and decreased by credit. Assets is a debit account and should be a positive number. Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (credit) may be positive or negative. You currently are subtracting a negative number for a net positive, since your Liabilities is set as a debit account. How you currently are set -> Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (debit) It is easier to understand if you change the columns from Increase/Decrease to Credit/Debit. I believe this is changed through Edit > Preferences > Accounts > Labels > Use formal accounting labels. To fix your situation, open up the Loan account and switch columns on the amounts. This will decrease Opening Balances and increase the loan, per your current column headings. This is a snippet of Opening Balances. You see that Opening Balances is debited and the Loan/Liability account credited. I included Petty Cash to show the reverse. Petty Cash is an asset, so it credits Opening Balances and debits Petty cash. This is a student loan Liability account. As you see, the Opening Balance is debited and decreased. The loan is credited and Liabilities increased. As payments are made, the reverse happens. The loan, being a credit account, is debited and the balance decreases. Opening Balances moves closer to 0 as well. The savings account, being a debit account, is credited and the balance decreases. There has been no change in Equity since Liabilities and Assets decresed by the same amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98c5dcb0d753943e9231dbea1e0df135",
"text": "\"Instead of \"\"stocks\"\" I would refer to that asset class as \"\"equity.\"\" Instead of bonds, I would refer to that asset class as \"\"fixed income.\"\" Given that more general terminology, GICs would fit into fixed income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f7ed281d9e2247fd4711722f1855ffd",
"text": "Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time. You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c0799dfc1e51a71540e0aa8aa6cb460",
"text": "Some qualitative factors to consider when deciding whether to finance with equity vs debt (for a publicly traded company): 1) The case for equity: Is the stock trading high relative to what management believes is its intrinsic value? If so, raising equity may be attractive since management would be raising a lot of $$$, but the downside is you give up future earnings since you are diluting current ownership 2) The case for debt: What is the expected return for the project in which the raised capital will be utilized for? Is its expected return higher than the interest payments (in % terms)? If so raising debt would be more attractive than raising equity since current ownership would not be diluted That's all I can think of off the top of my head right now, I'm sure there are a few more qualitative factors to consider but I think these two are the most intuitive",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86d74c5991c11c86aa22cd43a0a6a4f4",
"text": "\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \"\"very similar\"\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5247db998a4f01acf8bf2c77b04a6b9a",
"text": "\"Invest in productive assets and by that I mean companies. Edit: I'll elaborate on \"\"productive assets\"\": any asset that produces something; whether it produces cash or a commodity, you'll automatically accumulate more of its byproduct in the future. The rest is self explanatory\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980e48c749e05c0432b46adffc11cd8a",
"text": "Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions. So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company. What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "868c867800a21fde2d526c8ca2aa5885",
"text": "Bank assets are debt. Thus bank equity is a claim on debt. Note also that QE etal dropped interest rates, compressing interest rate spreads and making it harder for banks to make money. Banks do well when interest rates increase",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff",
"text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1140caa8335ae427e6326430838e159",
"text": "\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \"\"worth.\"\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \"\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\"\" It can be viewed as \"\"if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "118c4f391c47a9cef09d2b7a8617650b",
"text": "Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country. These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f84a8ee420e08c0f644f89ae9183c0bb",
"text": "What exactly does the balance sheet of a software company tell you? The majority of meaningful assets are inside your employees' heads. You can't capitalize R&D and depreciate it, it's a straight flow through to the income statement. And you can't put human capital on a balance sheet. Software firms generally carry little to no debt and their cap structure is almost all equity. What are you going to put up for collateral when your product is bits and bytes?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b93de284953fa5486669f0c77bcc3907",
"text": "You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy. I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”. It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86002c2881dc80cdb1d691a332a2557e",
"text": "\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ad012a262c78c39430b4a302d61702ad
|
I received $1000 and was asked to send it back. How was this scam meant to work?
|
[
{
"docid": "ab9f280a4c83f71970a17ce68cebc63f",
"text": "\"This is a very trivial scam. Flow is like this: Send money to Mr. X (you, in this case). Call Mr. X and ask for the money back, because mistake. Usually they ask for a wire transfer/cash/gift cards/prepaid cards or something else irreversible/untraceable. Mr. X initiates transfer back to Scammer. Accept the transfer from Mr. X Dispute the original transfer or otherwise cancel it through the netbank Mr. X cannot dispute his transfer to the Scammer, since it was genuinely and intentionally initiated by Mr. X. End up with twice the money, at the expense of Mr. X In other countries this is usually done with forged checks, but transfers can work just as well. As long as the transfer can be retroactively canceled or reversed - the scam works. You mentioned money laundering - this is definitely a possibility as well. They transfer dirty money to you from unidentified sources, and you send a \"\"gift\"\" to them with a clear paper trail. When the audit comes - the only proof is that you actually sent them the gift, and no-one will believe your story. You'll have to explain why the Mr. Z who's now in jail sent you a $1K of his drug money. However, in this case I think it is more likely a scam, and the scammer didn't really know what he was doing...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61107244a7aeebff7fdc6c97f2cf385e",
"text": "\"This is almost certainly a scam or a mistake. This is not good, spendable money: it is not yours to keep. Very simple to handle. Tell the bank, in writing that you were not expecting to receive this money and are a bit surprised to receive it. Preferably in a way that creates a paper trail. And then stop talking. Why? Because you honestly don't know. This puts you at arm's length to the money: disavowing it, but not refusing it. Wildest dreams: nobody wants it back ever. As for the person bugging you for the cash, tell them nothing except work with their own bank. Then ignore them completely. He probably hacked someone else, diverted their money into your account, and he's conning you into transferring it to a third location: him. Leaving you holding the bag when the reversals hit months later. He doesnt want you reversing; that would return the money to the rightful owner! He works this scam on dozens of people, and he wins if some cooperate. Now here's the hard part. Wait. This is not drama or gossip, you do not need to keep people updated. You are not a bank fraud officer who deals with the latest scams everyday, you don't know what the heck you are doing in this area of practice. (In fact, playing amateur sleuth will make you suspicious). There is nothing for you to do. That urge to \"\"do something\"\" is how scammers work on you. And these things take time. Not everyone banks in real time on smartphone apps. Of course scammers target those who'd be slow to notice; this game is all about velocity. Eventually (months), one of two things is likely to happen. The transfer is found to be fraudulent and the bank reverses it, and they slap you with penalties and/or the cops come knockin'. You refer them to the letter you sent, explaining your surprise at receiving it. That letter is your \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card. The other person works with their bank and claws back the money. One day it just disappears. (not that this is your problem, but they'd file a dispute with their bank, their bank talks to your bank, your bank finds your letter, oh, ok.) If a year goes by and neither of these things happens, you're probably in the clear. Don't get greedy and try to manipulate circumstances so you are more likely to keep the money. Scammers prey on this too. I think the above is your best shot.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1246ac2c44c05963a52453c41123bfd",
"text": "Possible ways they could make money (or think they could): I would go back through your transaction history and see if it's disappeared. Even with an assumed-rubbish interface finding a reversal of the transaction should be easy as you know the amount. I wouldn't spend it for a very long time if it is still there, just in case my last bullet applies. Given what they knew about you (phone number and account details) I'd be wary enough to keep an eye on all my accounts, possibly wary enough to consider credit monitoring in case they try to open other accounts with your details. Although of course plenty of people have legitimate reasons to have this information - if you've written a cheque the account details will be on it, and you might well be in the phone book or otherwise searchable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8cce2f339370e5c46053049133a94d",
"text": "\"It could be money laundering. so: Answer 1: They didn't get your data wrong. They indeed sent you $1,000. How they obtained your banking data is another issue we won't address here. Answer 2: Your PII(*) was most likely compromised. From what you report, it included at least your banking info and your phone number. Probably more, but goes out of the scope of this answer. Answer 3: Money Laundering is done in small transactions, to avoid having the financial institution filing a Currency Transaction Report(**). So they send $1,000 to several marks. Possibly at the stage of layering, to smudge out the paper trail associated to the money. Money laudering is a risky endeavour, and the criminals don't expect to have all the money they enter into the system come out clean on the other side. You really don't want to be associated with that cash, so the best is to report to your bank that you don't recognize that transaction and suspect illegal activity. In writing. Your financial institution knows how to proceed from there. Answer 4: Yes, and one of the worst financial scams. From drug trafficking, to human slavery and terrorism, that money could be supporting any of these activities. I urge the reader to access the US Treasury's \"\"National Money Laudering Risk Assessment\"\" report for more information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11d7a77d2a43c2551ee2393b41ef7bf",
"text": "\"There are three possibilities. This is a scam, as others have pointed out, it works by you sending money, then them stopping the original transfer, meaning you sent them your money and not theirs. They make money cause a stop payment only costs $50 (or around there) but you sent $1,000. So they profit $950. You lose $1,000 and maybe some processing fees. This is money hiding, or money laundering. They send you $1,000 in drug money, you send them $1,000 in \"\"clean\"\" money. You don't lose any money. But they gain a clear paper trail. With large sums of money (in the U.S. anything over $5k) you have to prove a paper trail. They just did. You gifted it to them. On your end, it looks like you just profited from illegal activity, which in the worst case ends in confiscation of ALL your assets and jail time. It might not come to that, but it could. This was an honest mistake, by an idiot. It is possible to wire a complete stranger money. If you make a mistake on the wire transfer forms, and the account number exists, it will go through. Now what makes the sender an idiot is not the mistake. We all do that. It's the fact that banks have a built in system for handling these mistakes. Simply put, you can make a stop payment. It's around $50 (varies by bank and sometimes amount transferred), it's easy to do, and almost automatic. If you tell a bank rep that you made a mistake they will likely have you fill out a paper, and in many cases will \"\"just take care of it\"\". If \"\"the idiot\"\" didn't want to tell the bank of the mistake, or didn't ask for help, or didn't want to pay the fee. Then maybe they would contact the receiving party. But that's pretty dumb. Resolution The resolution in all cases is the same. Visit your local branch, or send in writing, an explanation: \"\"I found $1,000 in my bank account that I didn't put there, and got this email (see attached print out). Please advise.\"\" They will \"\"freeze\"\" the $1,000 (or maybe the account but I have never seen that) while they investigate. You won't be able to spend it, they might even remove it pending the investigation. They will contact the bank that issued the transfer and attempt to sort things out. You shouldn't be charged anything. You also won't get to keep the money. Eventually the bank will send you a letter stating what happened with the investigation. And the money will vanish from your account. Specific questions I wanted to state the information above even though it doesn't address your concerns directly because it is important. To address your specific questions: Question 1) Surely bank account numbers have a checksum, which make it relatively difficult for a typo to result in a payment going to the wrong person? Nope, that's up to each bank. Usually the account numbers are not sequential, but there is no \"\"checksum\"\" either. Just like credit cards, there are rules, but once you know those rules you can generate fake ones all day long. In some cases, account numbers 5487-8954-7854 and 5487-8945-7854 are both valid. It happens. Question 2) What are likely sources of them being able to find my phone number to call me? Phone numbers are not private. Not even close. Phone books, Google, Websites, etc etc. if you think your phone number is in any way a secret then your totally misinformed. Account numbers are not a secret either. Especially bank account numbers. You could totally just call a bank, and say \"\"What is the name on account 12345?\"\" and they would tell you. Checks have your name and account number on them, as do MANY documents from a bank. So anything from asking the bank, to finding a copy of a check or document in the trash are valid ways to make the link. Question 3) How were they expecting to benefit? See options 1 and 2 above. If is is really option 3, then your bank should have directed the money back. But if the person was so messed up as you say, the account may have been closed and \"\"written off\"\". When that happens a lot of weird stuff can happen. Essentially the bank is \"\"taking a loss\"\" of money and doesn't want the money back even if the account was closed with a negative balance. Usually though contract with debt collectors, they may have already been \"\"paid\"\" for that debt, and are not allowed to take the money back. These things happen, but it seems like a pretty odd set of things that need to line up for #3 to be valid. About your Length of time Usually these things resolve in less then 90 days. Usually far less. At the 90 day mark, it gets really hard to reverse a transaction. It's possible that it was a scam and so many people fell for it that the scammers just let you keep the money instead of \"\"highlighting\"\" their scam. The fact that your using a \"\"net bank\"\" means that your can't go in person, but you should get details in writing. State the transaction number (it should be in your account records) and ask them for a \"\"letter of resolution\"\" or some form of official document stating the outcome of their investigation. I suspect that no one every really investigated the issue and the rep you spoke to never did anything then ask you to ask them to fill out a stop payment. You need a record of trying to sort this out. You don't want to up for some legal battle 10 years from now because someone found out that the money was part of a pool that was used to fund some terrorist group or some such. So get a paper trail, then go with what the bank says.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9c30016f089c93861704bcc73a9017c",
"text": "This was most likely a scam, although I do know of cases where a transfer intended for one company ended up in the bank account of another company. I am not entirely sure what happened afterwards, but I think the receiving company was asked to return the transfer back to the originating account. Still, even if this was the case, they wouldn't have just abandoned $1k for a simple administration fee (if there was even any). It doesn't sound logical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5def564824c8bcbc4e68db1a556af97",
"text": "\"OK, there is no way in hell that a stranger should have your contact details. there is no way in hell that a stranger should be able to determine your name from that account number unless you are previously known to them. Have they explained to your satisfaction how any previous relationship was established? It was correct to direct them back to their own bank or their branch manager if they bank with the CBA. There are procedures in place for this, and you are in the clear if the bank handles it. Even there is a previous relationship, and you are in their address book, think long and hard about their \"\"bona fides\"\". It may not have been a scam they may have had fat fingers and be genuinely out of pocket now. It is SOP that if you refuse to refund the money the banks will become less helpful. (EDIT - you have consented to retrun the money). EDIT - IF you had not consented... Disclosure: I am a former CBA employee and a 20 year veteran of NetBank, and these are my own opinions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af187814bd6060f3c39ca5ee90a05872",
"text": "I would have asked for the intended recipient's account number and pursue sending the money there. If it's the same as yours (except for one digit) that would be a good sign. But even here, the crook could send money to dozens of different accounts, all off by one digit, just to make it look authentic. I'm going with scam just to be safe. As for the checksum, it's used on paper checks (next to the last digit) but not necessarily the actual account. Credit card accounts use an algorithm, but online tools create as many legitimate character strings as you want. I used to work at a credit union, and when the time was just right, I opened account number 860000 (actual account number except for the second digit). All their account numbers were sequential, so the oldest account number was 000001. Sadly, many important systems are set up to meet the simple needs of the masses, and are easy to beat if you really want to. Check out If you dare hackers to hack you, they'll hack you good.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3179e94f6575f62b120ad585ad7631fc",
"text": "\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ade9e9453e39272b378323c795f6e9a8",
"text": "The initial story sounds normal. Happens every day. Checksums cannot prevent this, since it is a typo by the sender. The sender typed in a wrong account number. That account number happened to exist (so the sender wouldn't get any immediate error message), your account. But, that innocent story can also be used as part of a money laundering plan. Namely, to give the money a legitimate source. Also can be used in a scheme to frame you for something. The question of how the person got your phone number raises suspicion. The bluffs to avoid the normal paperwork, and then disappearing, make it incriminating. No doubt. Take this to the police. The question arises: even if the plan (whatever it was) failed, why didn't he do the paperwork and get the money back? The answer is that that would leave a trail to possibly be picked up in a future investigation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27b6d72f19fc2bcb72165db919317fab",
"text": "\"Most answers have concentrated on this being a scam, however, it is possible this is an innocent mistake. Australian bank account numbers do not have redundant digits to be used to validate an account number; all of the numbers are data and uniquely identify a bank and branch (the BSB number) and an account (the Account number). Computer check digits are not part of bank account numbers because bank account numbers pre-date computers. It is entirely possible that someone entering an incorrect number can, by chance, hit upon an existing account. As the bank clearance system in Australia is entirely automatic there is no cross-checking of account numbers with account names. Internet banking in Australia is not a wire-transfer as is common in places like the USA (although these can be done): here you are effectively accessing your bank's \"\"back office\"\". Nor is it like the BPay service which is used primarily by B to C businesses as a way for their customers to pay their bills; when using this service the biller code will show you who you are paying and the customer number does have check digit validation. I run a business in Australia and it has happened to us on several occasions than an employee or supplier has given us incorrect numbers. Usually, it is not a real account and after a week or so the money makes its way back to us with a message like NO ACCOUNT or A/C CLOSED. Very occasionally, however, the wrong number hits a live account: when that happens the person who f*&ked up needs to contact their bank and try and get the transaction reversed. If there is money in the destination account this usually happens with little fuss, however, if the destination account has been closed or emptied things get problematic. Of course, taking money that isn't yours is stealing even if it happens to be sitting in your bank account. However, unless the sum involved is significant the police are usually not interested in diverting their attention away from \"\"serious\"\" crimes like homicide, armed robbery and terrorism so the aggrieved party is usually on their own. That said, this is probably a scam because they called you rather than your bank doing so. They cannot get your phone number from your account number: they have to know who you are and what your account number is. This is not as hard to do as it sounds since both your name and account number are prominently printed on your cheques and deposit books (possibly your phone number as well which saves them looking it up in the White Pages).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f01187f9acffaf8747493180e29f7a3a",
"text": "I've skimmed through the answers given and I'd like do add another possible scenario. I've recently heard about this exact thing happening to someone only the money originally was a loan taken in the receivers name. 1) Scumbag finds out personal data – including social number, bank account and phone – of Innocent Victim. 2) Scumbag takes out a loan in the name of Innocent Victim. The money are sent to IV's account. 3) Scumbag calls IV saying 'Oh, I've made a mistake, blah, blah, yada, yada. Could you please send the money back to me? My bank account is...' 4) Innocent Victim, being the good guy that he/she is, of course want to help out and send the money to Scumbag. 5) Scumbag makes a cash withdrawal and is no longer anywhere to be found and Innocent Victim is left with a loan but no money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1b7ab6c8cdbaa615eef966f78dbeeb2d",
"text": "\"You get to keep the money if, and only if, you confirm with both parties (the loan and the mattress companies) that you received a refund twice, and both parties agree that they know that with no miscommunication, and they both agree to let you keep it. In writing. And even then it might be shifty depending on amounts. Generally speaking, you should not consider the money yours. It was refunded in error, after all. And it would have made more sense to confirm your communication before you deposited it, and you maybe shouldn't have moved it into savings, either - that looks kinda shifty, like keeping the money unavailable. Planning to keep it - or even just keep it \"\"till the shoe drops\"\" - looks an awful lot like fraud. As in, the crime. Taking or keeping money that doesn't belong to you, when you know it doesn't belong to you, is stealing. Since you know you got the payment in error, it is your responsibility to make at minimum a reasonable effort to make sure the money goes where it was intended to go - and by \"\"reasonable effort\"\" I mean roughly what kind of effort the companies should put in, in your view, if the error had worked out the other way with neither paying you back. At what point, if any, should they consider the money theirs, in the reversed situation? Depending on the amount involved, and the companies' attitudes, it is possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) that each company will hear your story, and respond (confirmed, in writing) that they have no problem letting you keep the payment from their company. In the companies' view, this might be about how much it would cost to recoup the amount (and is thus more likely for very small amounts), or else writing off the cost for customer service or PR. If both companies do this, you have the money free and clear. But I would not depend on this, companies have just as much reason to want money as you do - especially when belongs to them.\"",
"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": "364aa391ce2767ea2480cbba56ed93eb",
"text": "> 1. What exactly happens when I deposit $1000 to the bank? Does it lend to other parties $900 of what I have given them? Yep. > Or it turns my whole deposit into their reserve, then borrows $9000 from the central bank, and lends this sum to their customers? No, the bank can't loan more money than it has in deposits. Note that this does create money because, in this example, the bank loaned someone $900 but it still owes you $1000. > 2. What happens when I'll make final payment on my loan? Is this a different example or are we assuming your original $1000 was loaned to you? Regardless, every time you make a payment on a loan the bank can re-loan that money to someone else. > Does the bank also pay its base to the central bank (+ base interest rate) and keeps only their interests? The central bank has not been involved in this transaction so it doesn't receive anything. > Does the central bank remove from the circulation money it received back? Yes but I think you're switching topics. A central bank's transactions are more about managing the money supply and inflation of a [fiat currency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money#Money_creation_and_regulation). Ideally a central bank trades a bank's paper assets for reserves adding or subtracting to the bank's ability to issue loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4460aa5eb5a249d9056dd222a6242b4f",
"text": "\"Some rich people want to make money without working. So they give their money to a company like Apollo Global Management, and then Apollo Global Management takes the money that they were given and decides how they will turn that money into more money, which they can give back to the person who gave it to them. That money they give back is called return, or \"\"return on investment.\"\" That's how the person who gave the money, makes money -- from return on investment. The company's only real purpose is to make money with the money you give them. The company takes the money and sometimes they let other companies borrow that money, either for a long period of time or short period of time. They have different things called stocks, bonds, commodities and other things that they trade back and forth, and they only hope that they will make money doing it. It is sort of like they are going to work and playing the lottery every day, except, they do a lot of math to try and figure out how they can win the money from other companies as quick as possible. Instead of buying lotto tickets, they are buying those things I mentioned, stocks, bonds, commodities, and other things. By buying or selling these things, they are betting that a company will either make or lose money. It is basically like a game, with you and other people and companies, all as players. You are betting that the other players in the game will either make or lose money, based on what you see other players doing. As a player, you can win big or small, and you can lose big or small. There's a thing called the SEC. To play the game, you have to follow the rules that the SEC makes, or you will end up in jail! They are like the police, they are looking for people who do bad things. When you are older, you can make a lot of money if you work at a company like Apollo, but you can make more money than a lottery winner if you own a company yourself like Apollo.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75512ce75caa5622bf1637df2265689e",
"text": "\"How can I say this more clearly? SCAM, SCAM, SCAM! This is another one of the oldest scams out there, where you've won a prize or an inheritance has come in, and all you have to do is pay the taxes on it to claim it. Don't be a sucker! Ask yourself why the government couldn't (and wouldn't) just take the taxes due out of the funds they have and give the rest to the person they belong to? Wouldn't that be the smartest and easiest thing to do? As an example, let's say that you have $1,000 that belongs to me, and I owe you $100. Would you tell me to pay you the $100 and then you'll give me the $1,000 or would you take the $100 I owe you out of the $1,000 and give me the remaining $900? The fact this is someone you know from the internet and they want your \"\"help\"\" to claim their money should tell you how much of a scam this is. Stop talking to this person, and don't tell them anything personal about you. They are scam artists, and whatever you tell them could be used to steal your identity or take your money. Be careful, my friend!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75c4f6840c9c634feb441c398ad5ac39",
"text": "There are lots of red flags here that point to an obvious scam. First, no one, not even people close to you, ever have a valid reason to get your password or security questions. EVER. The first thing they will do is clean out the account you gave them. The second thing they will do is clean out any account of yours that uses the same password. Second, no one ever needs to run money through your account for any reason. If its not your money, don't take it. Third, this person is in the army but was deported to Africa (not to any particular country, just Africa), and is still in the army? This doesn't really make sense at all. This is a blatant obvious scam.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0fd3892b5b4a6ff7c51355d21f1b976",
"text": "For the US government, they've just credited Person B with a Million USD and haven't gained anything (afterall, those digits are intangible and don't really have a value, IMO). Two flaws in this reasoning: The US government didn't do anything. The receiving bank credited the recipient. If the digits are intangible, such that they haven't gained anything, they haven't lost anything either. In practice, the role of governments in the transfer is purely supervisory. The sending bank debits the sender's account and the receiving bank credits the recipient's account. Every intermediary makes some money on this transaction because the cost to the sender exceeds the credit to the recipient. The sending bank typically receives a credit to their account at a correspondent bank. The receiving bank typically receives a debit from their account at a correspondent bank. If a bank sends lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will run dry. If a bank receives lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will have too much money. This is resolved with domestic payments, sometimes handled by governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. In the US, banks have an account with the federal reserve and adjust balances there. The international component is handled by the correspondent bank(s). They also internally will credit and debit. If they get an imbalance between two currencies they can't easily correct, they will have to sell one currency to buy the other. Fortunately, worldwide currency exchange is extremely efficient.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0a2658de998d12d9dc39a6ad99053ba",
"text": "\"This is not only a scam but it is potentially fraud that may get you in trouble. This \"\"friend\"\" of yours will wire you some money in which you do not know where this money is really from. It's obvious from other answers that his story is fictitious. Thus it is likely that this money was stolen through another scam/hack in which now he wants to wash this money through your bank account. If it turns out that is was stolen, any money you withdrawal for your \"\"cut\"\", will have to be returned and your account will be frozen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9ebd8659554d647404cba860998ab27",
"text": "Ask your bank to recall the transfer (as if went to wrong account and you have inform the bank about it). Secondly get a police report in the country where you sent the money from and where it was sent to, and state the person's name and account details. Ethically this person should return the funding, but if he or she wants to play gangsters paradise, then you want to take police action and push your bank to take the funds back by RECALLING THE FUNDS UNDER INDEMNITY. Ask your bank to give you a copy of the message they have sent to the beneficiary's bank. Use this wording and you will have success. Contact the beneficiary bank also and give them details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b93a0cb7b43428d2589f99299d68934",
"text": "\"If this is your friend, and he that convinced he will \"\"get rich\"\" from this then there's really nothing you CAN do. You've obviously done your best to explain the situation to him, but he's been caught up in their sales pitch, and that's more convincing to him. I worked in sales for many years, and the answers he gives you (the one about not needing to know the details of how your smartphone works is a classic variation of typical objection-handling that salespeople are taught) proves that he has been sucked in by their scheme. At this stage, all you're going to do is ruin your friendship with him if you continue to press the matter, because he has made it clear he can't be convinced that this is anything other than legitimate. The reality is, he is probably in too deep at this stage to just walk away from it, so he has to convince himself that he made a wise choice. Schemes like this use a \"\"scarcity\"\" approach (there's only so much to go around, and if you don't get yours now then someone else will get it) coupled with ego-boosting (boy, Mr. Prospect, this is such a great opportunity, and you're one of only a few who are sophisticated enough to understand and take advantage of it) to get people to lower their guard and not ask a whole lot of probing questions. Nobody wants to feel stupid, and they don't want others to think they're stupid, so these schemes will present the information in such a way that ordinarily prudent questions come across as sounding dumb, making the questioner seem not so smart. Rather than walking away from it, peoples' pride will sometimes make them double down on it, and they'll just go along with it to come across as though they get it, even when they really don't. The small payouts at early stages are a classic sign of a Ponzi scheme. Your friend will never listen to you as long as those little checks continue to come in, because to him they're absolute proof he's right and you're wrong. It's those checks (or payouts, however they're doing it) that will make him step up his efforts to recruit other people into the scheme or, worse yet, invest more of his own money into this. Keep in mind that in the end, you really have no power to do anything in this situation other than be his friend and try to use gentle persuasion. He's already made it clear that he isn't going to listen to your explanations about why this is a scam, for a couple reasons. First (and probably greatest), it would be an admission that he's dumb, or at least not as smart as you, and who wants that? Second, he continues to get little checks that reinforce the fact this must be \"\"real\"\", or why else would he be getting this money? Third, he has already demonstrated his commitment to this by quitting his job, so from his point of view, this has become an all-or-nothing ticket to wealth. The bottom line is, these schemes work because the sales pitch is powerful enough to overcome ordinary logic for people who think there just has to be an easy way to Easy Street. All you can do is just be there as his friend and hope that he sees the light before the damage (to himself and anyone else) gets too great. You can't stop him from what he's doing any more than you can stop the sun from rising as long the message (and checks) he's getting from other people keep him convinced he's on the right path. EDIT After reading the comments posted in this thread, I do want to amend my statements, because many good points have been raised here. You obviously can't just sit by and do nothing while your friend talks others into taking the same (or worse) risks that he is. That's not morally right by any measure At the same time however, be VERY careful about how you go about this. Your friend, as you stated, sounds pretty much like he's all in with this scheme, so there's definitely going to be some serious emotional commitment to it on his part as well. Anyone and everything that threatens what he sees as his ticket to Easy Street could easily become a target when this all comes crashing down, as it inevitably will. You could very well be the cause of that in his eyes, especially if he knows you've been discouraging people from buying into this nightmare. People are NOT rational creatures when it comes to money losses. It's called \"\"sunken costs\"\", where they'll continue to chase their losses on the rationale they'll make up for it if they just don't give up. The more your friend committed to this, the worse his anxieties about losing, so he'll do whatever he has to in order to save his position. This is what gamblers do and why the house does so well for itself. Some have suggested making anonymous flyers or other means of communicating that don't expose you as the person spreading the message, and that's one suggestion. However, the problem with this is that since the receiver has no idea who sent the message, they're not likely to give it the kind of credibility or notice that they would to something passed to them by a person they know and trust, and your anonymous message will have little weight in the face of the persuasive pitch that got your friend to commit his own money (and future). Another problem, as you've noted, is that you don't travel in the same circles as the people he's likely to recruit, so how would you go about warning them? How would they view their first contact with you when it comes with a message not to trust what someone else they already know is about to tell them? Would they write it off as someone who's butty? Hard to tell. Another huge ploy of these schemes is that they tend to preemptively strike at what you propose doing -- that is, warning people to stay away. They do this by projecting the people giving the warnings as losers who didn't see the opportunity for themselves and now want to keep others away from their own financial success. They'll portray you as someone who isn't smart enough to see this \"\"huge opportunity\"\", and since you can't understand it, you don't think anyone else does either. They'll point out that if you were so good with finances, why aren't you already successful? These guys are very good, and they have an answer for every objection you can raise, whether its to them or to someone else. They've spent a long time honing their message, which makes it difficult for anyone to say something persuasive enough to sway others away from being duped. This is a hard path, no doubt. I hope you are able to warn others away. Just be aware that it may come at a cost to you as well, and be prepared for what that might be. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "186cbf2542e253e3663c6133f88a1bbb",
"text": "There's a good explanation of this type of scam at the following link; It's known as a Spot-Delivery scam. https://www.carbuyingtips.com/top-10-scams/scam1.htm Also, I read this one a while back, and immediately this post reminded me of it: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/when-the-dealership-steals-back-the-car-they-just-sold-1636730607 Essentially, they claim you'll get one level of financing, let you take the car home, and then attempt to extort a higher financing APR out of you or request more money / higher payments. Check your purchasing agreement, it may have a note with something along the lines of 'Subject to financing approval' or something similar. If it does, you might be 'out of luck', as it were. Contact an attorney; in some cases (Such as the 'oppositelock.kinja.com' article above) consumers have been able to sue dealers for this as theft.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "842bd5665f06182cd5f9685bd0f398cb",
"text": "\"They're taking advantage of float. Like so many things in the financial world today, this practice is a (strictly legal) fraud. When you make the transaction, the money is available immediately, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious to anyone who's ever used PayPal. It doesn't take 3 minutes for the broker to get that money, let alone 3 days. But if they can hold on to that money instead of turning it over to you, they can make money from it for themselves, putting money that rightfully belongs to you to work for them instead, earning interest on short-term loans, money market accounts, etc. The SEC mandates that this money must be turned over to you within 3 days so it should not surprise anyone that that's exactly how long the \"\"we have to wait for it to clear\"\" scam runs for. Even if it doesn't seem like very much money per transaction, for a large brokerage with hundreds of thousands of clients, all the little bits add up very quickly. This is why they feel no need to compete by offering better service: offering poor service is making them a lot of money that they would lose by offering better service.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f293c3173d07543b8ffd67b7f3a5569",
"text": "The typical scam is that they overpay you - 'accidentially', or for some obscure reason they claim, and they ask you to wire the extra money either back or to someone else. Because you wire it, that money is gone for sure. Then they undo the original transaction (or it turns out it was fake anyway), and you end up with a loss. Maybe he claims that he wants to buy some more stuff, and the fees are high, so he sends you all the payments in one amount, and you pay the other sellers from it, something like that. There are honest nigerians though, actually most of them. Either way, the real problem is that the original payment is fake. Whichever way it comes to you, you need to make sure that it cannot be reversed or declared invalid after you think you have it. Wire transfer is the only way I know that is not reversible. Bank transfers are reversible; don't think you have it just because it arrives in your bank account. Talk to your bank about what all can happen. If you make the deal, when you send the bike, think about insuring it (and make him pay for that too). That way, you are out of any loss risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2e4dbf57b23a3f2d34258f0f1ab06a5",
"text": "For Facebook and such companies, their ability to earn billions only happens through an IPO because that business model doesn't generate revenue. Without some drastic change that no one has mentioned, Facebook cannot make a profit, much less multi-billion dollar yearly profits. So you launch an IPO to rip off the suckers",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2840d9ee82b4c6fb1f2cc39abdf0e4da",
"text": ">1. A big project to automate the entry of 2 invoices per month from a supplier. Is would take an employee less than 10 minutes a month to enter those 2 invoices manually into the system. I am curious. Can't they apply the same solution for other suppliers?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5acf210ad6ddae9c075bee76042c926c
|
Can I force him to pay?
|
[
{
"docid": "5ea861f03b1140742cd3d0e3a18b8b69",
"text": "\"Its best to seek a lawyer, but it is unlikely you can force him to pay. You probably know couples, that are in some part of the divorce process, that have trouble obtaining court ordered payments. In your case you have less of a legal standing (exception: if you have children together). As far as the house goes, the two of you entered into some sort of business arrangement and it will be difficult to \"\"force\"\" him to pay. One thing that works for you is that he has excellent credit. If he is interested in keeping a high credit rating he will ensure that no payments are late on the home. Your question suggests that the two of you are not getting along very well right now, and that needs to stop. The best financial decision you can make right now is to get along with him. It seems that the two of you have not officially broken up. If you do decide to depart ways, do so as amicably as possible. You will have to work to get the home in your name only, and him off the deed. This benefits both of you as you will have sole control of the house and this ill advised business decision can end. He will have the home off his credit and will not be responsible if you miss a payment and can also buy a home or whatever of his own. Good luck and do your best to work this out. Seeking peace will cost you a lot less money in the long run. Fighting in court cost a lot of money. Giving in to semi-reasonable demands are far cheaper then fighting. Here is an example. Lets say he normally contributes $500 to the mortgage, and he decides to move out. I would ask him to contribute $200 until you can get his name off the loan, say 6 months at the most. After that you will put the house up for sale if you cannot obtain a mortgage in your own name and will split any profits.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "471cf77dadff4da873d468a9f47e4634",
"text": "Trying to forcefully reclaim the money will ruin the relationship. In general it's bad practice to loan money to family.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5620c024950487dff9344ee03c171ec5",
"text": "I came across such a situation and I am still facing it. My friend borrowed my credit card for his expenses as he had misplaced his debit card and for the time being had asked for my credit card to handle the expenses he does. He paid for initial 2 months and then was not able to make payments, mainly due to not being able to arrange money or if it was a contri party, he would collect cash from friends but again spend the same. Months passes by... the bill had come upto 65k and calls from bank and other respective organizations Finally my dad came into picture and slowly the issue is resolving he has paid 50K remaining is still pending. So basically, the reason I shared this part of story was he is my Best friend and in order to not spoil our friendship I did not want to take any such step which would later on affect our friendship. This completely depends on the individuals how they react to the situation. Keeping Ego, superiority, favour sort of feelings and words apart things can be resolved between friends. You do not know what is the situation on the other side. Probably you can connect with him ask him to explain you why is not able to pay the debts and take action accordingly. If he is not able to provide a proper reason then you may take some actions like mentioned in initial answers, run after the assets he own or anything else.Stay Calm and patient. Do not take any such step which you would regret later on...!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93b4633bc4b31002b95efa381173b0bd",
"text": "Ordinarily a cosigner does not appear on the car's title (thus, no ownership at all in the vehicle), but they are guaranteeing payment of the loan if the primary borrower does not make the payment. You have essentially two options: Stop making payments for him. If he does not make them, the car will be repossessed and the default will appear on both his and your credit. You will have a credit ding to live with, but he will to and he won't have the car. Continue to make payments if he does not, to preserve your credit, and sue him for the money you have paid. In your suit you could request repayment of the money or have him sign over the title (ownership) to you, if you would be happy with either option. I suspect that he will object to both, so the judge is going to have to decide if he finds your case has merit. If you go with option 1 and he picks up the payments so the car isn't repossessed, you can then still take option 2 to recover the money you have paid. Be prepared to provide documentation to the court of the payments you have made (bank statements showing the out-go, or other form of evidence you made the payment - the finance company's statements aren't going to show who made them).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89d9ea459669caeb89bd33fb1fbaf6fc",
"text": "It seems likely that the mortgage is not in your boyfriend's name because he never would have qualified if he can't even afford utilities after paying the mortgage. It also seems unfair that his sister continues to have a 50% share of the equity if your boyfriend has been making the entire payment on the mortgage every month. What would happen if your boyfriend stopped making the payments? His sister would have no choice if the property went into foreclosure. Your boyfriend has all the leverage he needs by simply refusing to continue making the payments. Why he won't push his sister to make a deal is the real question you need to ask him. In the meantime, if he wants out, all he has to do is decide not to keep paying whether his sister feels attached or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ebd671b4714aa27f60e4d0084603bad",
"text": "You absolutely can be put in jail in America for debt... if that debt is to a government or government agency (like a municipal government). If you have unpaid court costs, fines, etc., it's common practice in most municipalities to issue an arrest warrant for those, even if non-payment is due to being indigent. In a lot of cases, even if you show up to explain why you can't pay or make a partial payment on the due date, you'll be arrested and jailed until a judge is available to hear your explanation, if one isn't available right when you go in. What's supposed to happen is that if you're indigent (can't pay), a judge will hear your explanation and, provided it's determined that you're indigent, make adjustments to what you owe (cancel or reduce the amount, extend the due date, setup a payment plan, etc.) and send you on your way. It bears mentioning that even in cases where the system works like it should, there's still a very real chance of being put in jail, which isn't harmless - people can and do lose their jobs while they're sitting in jail waiting to plead indigence to a judge. And of course, what's supposed to happen isn't what always does. The police shootings of the past couple years in Missouri have shone some light in a lot of dark corners down there, where there are, in fact, de-facto debtor prisons in many municipalities. In addition to civil rights groups filing suit over this in many Missouri municipalities, the US Department of Justice has filed suit against the city of Ferguson over their municipal practices (including their use of the courts and jails to generate municipal revenue). Some forms of private debt (like child support) also fall under this umbrella where an arrest warrant will be issued for failure to pay for any reason, and this was determined to be a factor in the Walter Scott shooting - Walter Scott ran to avoid being put in jail over child support debt, and losing his job while in jail. The New York Times highlighted his case in an article titled: Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat. Rodney Scott said that he sometimes thought his brother did not do everything he could to catch up, but that Walter seemed to consider it a hopeless cause. He recalled seeing his brother plead to a judge that he just did not make enough money. “He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76ef434980e501e5c6eca6d295ecc6a9",
"text": "What's the primary factor keeping a consumer from handing out fees as liberally as corporations or small businesses do? Power. Can an individual, or more appropriately, what keeps an individual from being able to charge, fine or penalize a Business? If it could be accomplished, but at a high cost, let's assume it's based on principal and not monetary gain. And have a legal entitlement to money back? No. You are of course welcome to send your doctor a letter stating that you would like $50 to make up for your two hour wait last time around, but there's no legal obligation for him to pay up, unless he signed a contract stating that he would do so. Corporations also cannot simply send you a fine or fee and expect you to pay it; you must have either agreed to pay it in the past, or now agree to pay it in exchange for something. In these cases, the corporations have the power: you have to agree to their rules to play ball. However, consumers do have a significant power as well, in well-competed markets: the power to do business with someone else. You don't like the restocking fee? Buy from Amazon, which offers free shipping on returns. You don't like paying a no-show fee from the doctor? Find a doctor without one (or with a more forgiving fee), or with a low enough caseload that you don't have to make appointments early. Your ability to fine them exists as your ability to not continue to patronize them. In some markets, though, consumers don't have a lot of power - for example, cable television (or other utilities). The FCC has a list of Customer Service Standards, which cable companies are required to meet, and many states have additional rules requiring penalties for missed or late appointments tougher than that. And, in the case of the doctor, if your doctor is late - find one that is. Or, try sending him a bill. It does, apparently, work from time to time - particularly if the doctor wants to keep your business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f3cc07afc72563ecf7740e84bc54c8f",
"text": "Well, if someone who owes me money defaults, I lose the money he promised to pay me. To me that would be a huge moral obstacle for declaring myself bankrupt. I was raised in believing that you keep your promises.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6deab0b0a73d54fc96fce6a32d886ccb",
"text": "I'm not a lawyer, and am certainly not familiar with your jurisdiction, but the general guidelines I've seen around this kind of situation are: If all else fails, you could just cancel the card, though I'm not sure what liability you have to honour the contract. I cancelled a card once to stop being charged by a particularly annoying company and had no problems, but I'm not sure if that is a good way to deal with it in general.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a5872092a2fbc51f4ee6e4ea1f9aa2a",
"text": "\"First of all, the only thing they can do to force you to pay is sue you. If they don't sue you, then they can't force you to do anything. All they have right now is just a written agreement you signed promising to pay. That by itself doesn't have legal power to take money from you. The worst they can do without suing you is put negative information on your credit report (which has probably already happened anyway). If they sue you within the \"\"statute of limitations\"\", they will almost certainly win and get a judgment against you, because you did agree to pay. With that judgment, the court can force you to reveal your income and asset information, and they can take the judgment to do things like seize money from your bank accounts and/or garnish your wages. And the judgment does not go away. However, if you have no money in the bank and/or income, they can't take any money from you, because you have none. They can't take more from you than you have. In other words, if you have no money or income, and won't have money or income soon, the judgment they can get by suing you and winning isn't worth the paper it's on. Since serving you and suing you takes money and effort, they will make a calculation on whether it is worth suing you based on the amount of debt and what amount of money they think they can get from you based on what they know about you. This is the reason why you may not be sued at all (if they calculate that it is not worth it), and also why they may offer you a settlement for a lesser amount (because is saves the cost of suing and the risk that they won't be able to get you to pay). The amount you mentioned (several thousand dollars) may be small enough for it to be not worth it. Another thing is the statute of limitations I mentioned earlier, which varies by state and is several years long. If they sue you after the statute of limitations passes, then you can raise the statute of limitations and get the lawsuit dismissed. So basically, after this amount of time passes, you are pretty much free from this debt. Note that the statute of limitations \"\"resets\"\" if you acknowledge the debt, which includes paying any amount on the debt or agreeing that you owe them this debt. So if the collection agency ever offers you benefits if you just sign a promissory note, or just pay a token amount, don't fall for the trap -- they are trying to reset the statute of limitations. Even though it's true that you owe them the debt, never let them hear you acknowledging it, unless it's part of a final settlement. Finally, if they get a judgment against you and you don't want them to have the ability to take your money indefinitely in the future until the debt is satisfied, there may be the option of bankruptcy. However, a few thousand dollars may not be worth the cost and negative consequences of bankruptcy, since as a young man you should be able to earn that amount quickly whenever you start working.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77d68c4c385e2b0976f34774793c60e0",
"text": "\"Short answer: No, not normally. Long Answer: It depends on the contract. If the 14% is some sort of special offer, with conditions, then if you violate those conditions, they can jack you up to whatever the 'normal' rate is. But outside of that condition, I can't see any reason why they would wish to penalize you for making a payment. You will note that there is no \"\"maximum\"\" payment on the bill. Secondly, even if they do jack up the rate to 28%, you're still better off paying $70 on 3000, than you are paying ~120 on 10k. Then tell them where to stick their card and get a new one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fa642b6d1699325bda825d5440788e0",
"text": "Make sure I am reading this correctly. You signed the car over to you BF, he took a loan against it and gave you the money? If so, you sold him the car and any use you have had of it since was at his consent. Outside of a written contract saying otherwise (and possibly even with one) it is now his car to do with as he pleases. It sucks that things are not working out in the manner you intended at the time, but that is the reality of the situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e36c25e1dba1eb52f81421c5381ad65",
"text": "File a small claims lawsuit in the city that the person resides. The court will charge you a small fee and give you a date. They will also summons the other person to appear. Bring all the documentation that shows the following BONUS - Bring the documentation that shows them saying they will not pay you back I had to sue someone once for a very similar problem. I lent them a 6 month interest free loan. They told me to shove it after 6 months and 1 day. So I sued them. The court should accept facebook messages as proof. More than likely though your friend wont even show up which means you win by default. Here's the bad news, that was the easy part. Just because you win in court doesn't mean the money appears the next day. There are a couple ways you may have to recover your money. Best of luck to you!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e04a6a482c4d33b7cb0fdf8682ac7c1c",
"text": "Send a well-documented payment to the original creditor. Do it in such a way that you would have the ability to prove that you sent a payment if they reject it. Should they reject it, demonstrate that to the credit reporting bureaus.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ff502edeca8b9aa55cce01a654cb0e",
"text": "\"A business can refuse cash (paper currency) payment pretty much in all cases provided it's a reasonable policy and/or notified during/in advance of contracting. Details in this link. \"\"all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.\"\" Even if the payment is being made to settle a debt or other obligation, the creditor may refuse payment if their rationale is reasonable (as determined by the courts).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e90318700f267d3ac2266af3c35b7fbb",
"text": "Perhaps it seems harsh, but I would get separate accounts: credit cards, savings, retirement, all the way down the line. Your only joint account should be for paying mortgage/rent and other bills. And as another poster said, delete all your saved info from browsers &c. Perhaps you even need to set up separate user ids. If this really is a case of compulsive spending, curing it is likely to be a long, hard process, if it's even possible. You need to put yourself in a position where you won't be dragged down with him.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5c0e697d6936e279644efd6f58e3c560
|
Indicators a stock is part of a pump and dump scheme?
|
[
{
"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": "e2d9f7881550286299c20f40cb08e5a5",
"text": "\"Pump-and-Dump strategy is happening everywhere. Less so in developed market. I can tell an experience from Emerging Market perspective. Usually several securities brokers work together to pump several \"\"penny\"\" stocks (5 - 7 stocks). They conspire together and searching for several investors, who have money and willing to participate in this scheme. These investors will then agree to invest (usually with Margin from securities) to start pumping the stocks. The stocks will be pumped until several Research Analysts take interest in it. Once the news were spread out regarding these highly speculative stocks. The investors gradually dumps the stocks (with help of their brokers). The things that you need to keep an eye for: - Low trading volume in the previous 3 - 6 months (relative to their peers) - Low P/E ratio with unremarkable earning growth - No positive catalyst or material news regarding the company - Stocks have high momentum (observe on weekly rather daily returns) Pump-and-dump usually last between 3 months to 6 months.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41d8fdff82afc393afa41b1b7afff9bc",
"text": "\"Note: the answer below is speculative and not based on any first-hand knowledge of pump-and-dump schemes. The explanation with spamming doesn't really makes sense for me. Often you see a stock jump 30% or more in a single day at a particular moment in time. Unlikely that random people read their emails at that time and decide to buy. What I think happens is the pumper does a somewhat risky thing: starts buying a lot of shares of a stock that has declined a lot and had low volumes during the previous days. As the price starts to increase other people start to notice the jump and join the buying spree (also don't forget that some probably use buy-stop orders which are triggered when the price reaches a particular level). Also there should be some automatic trading involved (maybe HFT firms do pump-and-dumps) as you have to trade a big volume in a relatively short time span. I think it is unlikely to be done by human operators. Another explanation would be that there is a group of pumpers (to spread the risk so to speak). Update: As I think more of it, it is not necessary to buy \"\"a lot of shares\"\". You could buy some shares, sell them to another pumper and buy from them again at a higher price in several iterations. I think this could also work if you do it fast enough. These scheme makes sense only you previously bought many shares at the low price, possibly during several weeks. Once the price is pumped high enough you can start selling the shares you previously bought (in the days preceding the pump).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e4b523852599b8e2fba6ddcef5849ac9",
"text": "Now company A has been doing ok for couple of weeks, but then due to some factors in that company its stock has been tanking heavily and doesn't appear to have a chance to recover. In this kind of scenario, what does happen? In this scenario, if that company is included in the index being tracked, you will continue holding until such time that the index is no longer including that company. Index funds are passively managed because they simply hold the securities contained in the index and seek to keep the allocations of the fund in line with the proportions of the index being tracked. In an actively managed fund the fund manager would try to hedge losses and make stock/security picks. If the manager thought a particular company had bad news coming maybe they would offload some or all the position. In an index fund, the fund follows the index on good days and bad and the managers job is to match the asset allocations of the index, not to pick stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb2125f617de0d2ef9c2669b5daee3e3",
"text": "\"There are a number of ways to measure such things and they are generally called \"\"sentiment indicators\"\". The ones that I have seen \"\"work\"\", in the sense that they show relatively high readings near market tops and relatively low readings near market bottoms. The problem is that there are no thresholds that work consistently. For example, at one market top a sentiment indicator may read 62. At the next market top that same indicator might read 55. So what threshold do you use next time? Maybe the top will come at 53, or maybe it will not come until 65. There was a time when I could have listed examples for you with the names of the indicators and what they signaled and when. But I gave up on such things years ago after seeing such wide variation. I have been at this a long time (30+ years), and I have not found anything that works as well as we would like at identifying a top in real time. The best I have found (although it does give false signals) is a drop in price coupled with a bearish divergence in breadth. The latter is described in \"\"Stan Weinstein's Secrets For Profiting in Bull and Bear Markets\"\". Market bottoms are a little less difficult to identify in real time. One thing I would suggest if you think that there is some way to get a significant edge in investing, is to look at the results of Mark Hulbert's monitoring of newsletters. Virtually all of them rise and fall with the market and almost none are able to beat buy and hold of the Wilshire 5000 over the long term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8909082c87f6c7ba62cc7775a52bf7d3",
"text": "Starting with the basics, you have the sell side (investment banks, Goldman Sachs) and the buy side (asset managers, Blackrock). The buy side are the clients of the sell side, directing trade flow through banks and using their research and taking part in origination and new issues. Basically both are currently under structural pressure from passive investing combined with new technology and regulation (MIFID 2 in Europe).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2370ce29b34e888e4953cbc89dbead98",
"text": "\"Some technical indicators (e.g. Williams %R) indicate whether the market is overbought or oversold. ... Every time a stock or commodity is bought, it is also sold. And vice versa. So how can anything ever be over-bought or over-sold? But I'm sure I'm missing something. What is it? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how equity markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers, who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for Market Makers to accumulate a large number of shares, without end-investors being involved on both sides of the transaction. This is one example of how instruments can be over-bought or over-sold. Since Williams %R creates over-bought and over-sold signals based on historical averages of open / close prices, perhaps it's better to think of these terms as \"\"over-valued\"\" and \"\"under-valued\"\". Of course, there could be good reason for instruments to open or close outside their expected ranges, so Williams %R is just a tool to give you clues... not a real evaluation of the instrument's true value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b91f27e36696c9822c4fee74730f9f53",
"text": "Probing for hidden limit orders usually involves sending the orders and then cancelling them before they get filled if they don't get filled. With trades actually going through multiple times for small amounts it looks more like a VWAP strategy where the trader is feeding small volumes into the market as part of a larger trade trying to minimize average cost. It could be probing but without seeing the orders and any cancels it would be difficult to tell. edit: I just had another thought; it could possibly be a market maker unwinding a bad position caused by other trading. Sometimes they drip trades into the market to prevent themselves from hitting big orders etc. that might move back against them. This is probably not right but is just another thought. source: I work for an organization that provides monitoring for these things to many large trading organizations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f540b8aa33ad5cdafe3ccc68ff7cdcc3",
"text": "You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d9444595e7e45564762ff58a6c29bc5",
"text": "\"While this figure is a giant flashing-red beacon of inflation, it should be noted that this has been happening during a period of unprecedented writedowns and deleveraging of \"\"hypothetical\"\" assets -- assets that exist on paper only. The result, given the way QE funds have been injected into the market (eg TAF), is that people who *should've* lost money get to tread water, and the inflation is not apparent in the rest of the economy (unless you are actually aware of the severe repercussions which should've happened but didn't). Also, and separately, I'm not so sure another round of QE is coming.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ff8b3f6f2f9d3e754116ea2c5a627b0",
"text": "Who would be committing this fraud? Satoshi Nakamoto? Good luck finding him. You can't punish people for speculatively investing just like they couldn't punish many people for the Great Depression since it was mostly the people who fucked themselves over. Fraud implies an element of deceit. This cannot reasonably be called a fraud--at best, it could be called a bubble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a561affc61fa20962143e8ad43eb4b9e",
"text": "\"Be wary of pump and dump schemes. This scheme works like this: When you observe that \"\"From time to time the action explodes with 100 or 200% gains and volumes exceeding one million and it then back down to $ 0.02\"\", it appears that this scheme was performed repeatedly on this stock. When you see a company with a very, very low stock price which claims to have a very bright future, you should ask yourself why the stock is so low. There are professional stock brokers who have access to the same information you have, and much more. So why don't they buy that stock? Likely because they realize that the claims about the company are greatly exaggerated or even completely made up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "284f2fbee5b6cc709b75948be82d8d58",
"text": "An oxymoron is something that contradicts itself. Inside trading is sharing information that isn't public. How the fuck do you think these hedge funds and investment banks can offer almost 50% returns during these times in our economy??? Oh yea it's called inside trading. Reason why it's an oxymoron is because trading information is considered ilegal yet that what everyone does on the market, rules are made to give off fear but past that it's all open roads and deep pockets. And if you really don't believe that stock market isn't rigged then there is no reason for me to explain myself on that because it would be like taking to a wall. And I thank you for being one of those people that thinks it's not rigged because you help my portfolio look good from your dumb investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c04be15b6800d5c5717ebe50622497f3",
"text": "\"You can't do this automatically; you want to understand whether the drop is from a short-term high. is likely to be a short-term low, or reflects an actual change in how folks expect the company to do in the future. Having said that, some people do favor a strategy which resembles this, betting on what are known as \"\"the dogs of the Dow\"\" in the assumption that they're well trusted but not as strongly sought and therefore perhaps not bid up as strongly. I have no opinion on it; I'm just mentioning it for comparison.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746695f1ed40084921944d10b539c726",
"text": "Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up.",
"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": "fb58d86e7f47048800fa325beac73e59",
"text": "Relative Strength Indicators are also trailing indicators. They are based on the number of recent upticks or downticks in an investment's price. (The size of a tick is quantized, and related to the investment's price.) By the time enough upticks have accumulated to generate a buy signal, the investment has already increased in price significantly. Similarly, by the time enough downticks have accumulated a to generate a sell signal, the investment has already dropped in price significantly. The theory of Relative Strength Indicators is based on the hope that moves found by these indicators are likely to continue after the signal is generated. But even if this is the case, someone who relies on these indicators will miss out on the first part of the move. Dorsey-Wright offers investment research based on the theory of Relative Strength Indicators. They offer investment vehicles based on this research. They also work with local investment advisors to develop custom back-tested strategies. They have published a white-paper, with references to others' research.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ce9291ac985db688b972d9b13bc5999",
"text": "\"Will the bank be taxed on the $x received through selling the collateral? Why do you care? They will, of course, although their basis will be different. It is of no concern for you. What is your concern is that the write-off of the loan is taxed as ordinary income (as opposed to capital gains when you sell the stocks) for you. So when the bank seizes the stocks, they will also report to the IRS that they gave you the amount of money that you owed them (which they will \"\"give you\"\" and then put it on the account of the loan). So you get taxed on that amount as income. In addition, you will be taxed on the gains on the stocks, as giving them to the bank is considered a sale. So you may actually find yourself in a situation where you'd be paying taxes twice, once capital gains, and once as ordinary income, on the same money. I would strongly advise against this. If it is a real situation and not a hypothetical question - get a professional tax advice. I'm not a professional, talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cbe8b17cea286fc8307e1f2d8cacb8bc
|
Tax and financial implications of sharing my apartment with my partner
|
[
{
"docid": "7455319de0de59050f5b59e53c48bbe1",
"text": "\"I am not a lawyer nor a tax accountant, so if such chimes in here I'll gladly defer. But my understanding is: If you're romantically involved and living together you're considered a \"\"household\"\" and thus your finances are deemed shared for tax purposes. Any money your partner gives you toward paying the bills is not considered \"\"rent\"\" but \"\"her contribution to household expenses\"\". (I don't know the genders but I'll call your partner \"\"her\"\" for convenience.) This is not income and is not taxed. On the off chance that the IRS actually investigated your arrangement, don't call any money she gives you \"\"rent\"\": call it \"\"her contribution to living expenses\"\". If you were two (or more) random people sharing a condo purely for economic reasons, i.e. you are not a family in any sense but each of you would have trouble affording a place on your own, it's common for all the room mates to share the rent or mortgage, utilities, etc, but for one person to collect all the money and write one check to the landlord, etc. Tax law does not see this as the person who writes the check collecting rent from the others, it's just a book-keeping convenience, and so there is no taxable transaction. (Of course the landlord owes taxes on the rental income, but that's not your problem.) In that case it likely would be different if one person outright owned the place and really was charging the others rent. But then he could claim deductions for all the expenses of maintaining it, including depreciation, so if it really was a case of room mates sharing expenses, the taxable income would likely be just about zero anyway. So short answer: If you really are a \"\"couple\"\", there are no taxable transactions here. If the IRS should actually question it, don't refer to it as \"\"collecting rent\"\" or any other words that imply this is a business arrangement. Describe it as a couple sharing expenses. (People sometimes have created tax problems for themselves by their choice of words in an audit.) But the chance that you would ever be audited over something like this is probably remote. I suppose that if at some point you break up, but you continue to live together for financial reasons (or whatever reasons), that could transform this into a business relationship and that would change my answer.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6f1757e12b8309837d76e792e3845e77",
"text": "\"I don't believe it makes a difference at the federal level -- if you file taxes jointly, gains, losses, and dividends appear on the joint tax account. If you file separately, I assume the tax implications only appear on the owner's tax return. Then the benefits might outweigh the costs, but only if you correctly predict market behavior and the behavior of your positions. For example, lets say you lose 30k in the market in one year, and your spouse makes 30k. If you're filing jointly, the loss washes out the gain, and you have no net taxes on the investment. If you're filing separately, you can claim 3k in loss (the remaining 27k in loss is banked to future tax years), but your spouse pays taxes on 30k in gain. Where things get more interesting is at the state level. I live in a \"\"community property state,\"\" where it doesn't matter whether you have separate accounts or not. If I use \"\"community money\"\" to purchase a stock and make a million bucks, that million bucks is shared by the two of us, whether the account is in my name our in our name. income during the marriage is considered community property. However property you bring into the marriage is not. And inheritances are not community property -- until co-mingled. Not sure how it works in other states. I grew up in what's called an \"\"equitable property state.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4ac983d6ee94356118fbf13209c0313",
"text": "\"Your lack of numbers makes the question a difficult read. What I'm hearing is \"\"I want a house requiring a mortgage 8X my income.\"\" This alone is enough to suggest it's a bad deal. On a personal note, when my wife and I bought our house, it was 2.5X our income. 20% down, so the mortgage was exactly 2X income. And my wife was convinced we were in over our heads. The use of a partner who will take a portion of the profit is interesting, but doesn't change the fact that you are proposing to live in a house that costs far too much for you. If you are determined to buy such a house, I'd suggest you do it with the plan to rent out a room or two to roommates. If you are living in an area where the cost of buying is so high, the demand for rentals is likely high as well. Absent a plan to bring ion more income, I see no good coming from this. Heed the warnings posted in the other two answers as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59c1caa0b4f4ba5a04b1ff5e3b69cd6d",
"text": "It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer - each.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d39c6456e750dfb85f62ca446ac5b05",
"text": "\"If you have a huge disparity in incomes, \"\"maybe\"\". If you make roughly in the same ballpark, **Noooooo!** The ability to file separately and have one partner (the higher earner) itemize and claim all the home-related deductions while the other takes the standard deduction is one of the greatest (middle-class) loopholes in modern tax law. When married, even if filing separately, you have to both itemize or both take the standard deduction. You just need to take care that the person itemizing has provably contributed *at least* the amount they claim toward the house. So have one of you write the checks for the mortgage and property tax, and the other pay for everything else, and it'll probably come out roughly even over time. Going back to my first line, the US tax code seems to be designed around the stereotypical Donna Reed 1950s household, with a single earner. The closer you are to equal, the bigger the marriage tax **penalty** gets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef642c033a2f012d4e8c46a4ce66ec31",
"text": "\"You've laid out several workable options. You might try going to mortgage broker and looking at what offers you get each way. I can say that it sounds like your partner will have a difficult time qualifying for a mortgage. That puts you on the first and third options. Forget about \"\"building equity.\"\" You cannot rely on the house you're living in to provide a return on investment. Housing is an expense, even if you own it outright. Keep that in mind when you consider taking from the stream of money contributing to your retirement. This link is to a blog which really clarifies the \"\"rent vs. own, which is better?\"\" question. The answer is, it depends on the individual and the location, and the blogger in the link explains how to answer that question for your situation. One of the key advantages of ownership is that it gives you freedom to modify the interior, exterior, and grounds (limited by local building codes of course.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18a4acfd33c5b0a9aca4a2a2e35d466f",
"text": "The issue here is that the transaction (your funds to her account) looks very similar to the rent payments which you plan to make in the future. Those rental payments (if deemed to be commercial) would normally be subject to tax. Consider the scenario where rather than an up front $5000, and $5000 over 2 years, you paid her $10000, and paid no rent. That might be an attempt to avoid paying tax. A commercial transaction can't be re-labeled as a gift just based on your election - the transaction needs to be considered as a whole. However, an interest free, unsecured loan connected with you paying rent at market rate would be (depending on local laws) simply foolish (to some extent). I don't think you are able to structure the transaction as a joint purchase (since the mortgage will prevent her from allocating a part of the property to you). Its also likely that you can live in her house and contribute an adequate amount to the household costs without creating a taxable income for her. For example in the UK, up to ~£4000 pa rental income generated from the property in which you reside does not need to be declared. You need to identify the scenarios where your particular arrangement could be imagined as resulting in a taxable or potentially taxable event - then make sure you are not avoiding those events just by choosing how you label the events.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "583cffbcbec14df4b5a6fb12db7fbfff",
"text": "\"The prenup complicates things. The traditional vow of a marriage is \"\"What's mine is yours, what's yours is mine\"\". With such a traditional marriage it doesn't matter too much which partner's name something is in, in the event of a divorce the assets of the couple would be considered as a whole and then split. But you have a prenup which is presumably intended to change this traditional arrangement (and may or may not actually be enforceable). I think you are as such right to be wary. I think your only way forward long term is to amend the prenup and/or the legal status of the house to recognize it as a shared asset that you will both be contributing to and that it's value should be split in some way in the event of a divorce. In exchange you should probably be contributing some or all of the cash pile you have from selling your house to the common pot. Another loan may seem like a good option in the short term but in the long term the appreciation on a house is likely to be worth more than any interest on the loan (assuming you are using an interest rate comparable to commercial mortgage deals), plus any interest may well end up being taxable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3ee0d5539681aa6015fec07c1b27559",
"text": "Well, you won't be double taxed based on what you described. Partners are taxed on income, typically distributions. Your gain in the partnership is not income. However, you were essentially given some money which you elected to invest in the partnership, so you need to pay tax on that money. The question becomes, are you being double taxed in another way? Your question doesn't explain how you invested, but pretty much the options are either a payroll deduction (some amount taken out of X paychecks or a bonus) or some other payment to you that was not treated as a payroll deduction. Given that you got a 1099, that suggests the latter. However, if the money was taken out as a payroll deduction - you've already paid taxes (via your W2)! So, I'd double check on that. Regarding why the numbers don't exactly match up - Your shares in the partnership likely transacted before the partnership valuation. Let's illustrate with an example. Say the partnership is currently worth $1000 with 100 outstanding shares. You put up $1000 and get 100 shares. Partnership is now worth $2000 with 200 outstanding shares. However, after a good year for the firm, it's valuation sets the firm's worth at $3000. Your gain is $1500 not $1000. You can also see if what happened was the firm's valuation went down, your gain would be less than your initial investment. If instead your shares transacted immediately after the valuation, then your gain and your cost to acquire the shares would be the same. So again, I'd suggest double checking on this - if your shares transacted after the valuation, there needs to be an explanation for the difference in your gain. For reference: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/incorporation-and-legal-structures/partnership-taxes.html And https://www.irs.gov/publications/p541/ar02.html Here you learn the purpose of the gain boxes on your K1 - tracking your capital basis should the partnership sell. Essentially, when the partnership is sold, you as a partner get some money. That money is then taxed. How much you pay will depend on what you received versus what the company was worth and whether your gain was long term or short term. This link doesn't go into that detail, but should give you a thread to pull. I'd also suggest reading more about partnerships and K1 and not just the IRS publications. Don't get me wrong, they're a good source of information, just also dense and sometimes tough to understand. Good luck and congrats.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed944c03c1e7096cb07630e758530dac",
"text": "Both states will want to tax you. Your tax home is where you maintain a domicile, are registered to vote, etc. and you will probably want to keep this as MA since you state that MA is your permanent residence and you are staying in a rented place in PA. But be careful about voter registration; that is one of the items that can be used to determine your state of residence. OK, so if you and your spouse are MA residents, you should file jointly as residents in MA and as nonresidents in PA. Do the calculations on the nonresident return first, and then the calculations on the resident return. Typically, on a nonresident tax return, the calculations are effectively the following: Report all your income (usually AGI from the Federal return). Call this $X. Compute the PA state tax due on $X. Note that you follow the rules for nonresidents in doing this, not the calculations used by PA residents. Call the amount of tax you computed as $Y. What part of the total income $X is attributable to PA sources? If this amount is $Z, then you owe PA $Y times (Z/X). On the resident return in MA, you will likely get some credit for the taxes paid to PA, and this will reduce your MA tax burden. Usually the maximum credit is limited to the lesser of actual tax paid to PA and what you would have had to pay MA for the same income. As far as withholding is concerned, your employer in PA will withhold PA taxes as if you are a PA resident, but you can adjust the amount via the PA equivalent of IRS Form W4 so as to account for any additional tax that might be due because you will be filing as a nonresident. Else you can pay estimated taxes via the PA equivalent of IRS Form 1040ES. Similarly, your wife can adjust her withholding to account for the MA taxes that you will owe on the joint income, or you can pay estimated taxes to MA too. Note that it is unlikely that your employer in Pennsylvania will withhold Massachusetts taxes (and send them to Massachusetts) for you, e.g. if it is a ma-and-pa store, but there may be special deals available if your employer does business in both states, i.e. is a MA-and-PA store.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c586d75c50139784c3060279ab46c069",
"text": "Myself and my partner do things a little differently to most. We split accommodation and utilities payments by net income proportion to ensure that we both have the same amount of spending money. For example; The really important bit is net income. We take off a whole bunch of payments, e.g; Our contributions go into a joint account and the rest is our money to spend. The upshot is that we both get to enjoy the same minimum quality of life because we both get the same amount to spend at the bar.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1ff3cee0decc25182c465a797af4a69",
"text": "\"If you are living together 'casually' (no formal partnership agreement) then my option would be to ask her politely to as she has offered make a contribution by buying the groceries or some such which you share. A 'voluntary contribution' not an enforceable one. Just as between flat mates where only one is the actual tenant of the flat but the tenancy allows 'sharing' . Check your tenancy allows you to share lodgings. PS An old Scots saying is \"\"never do business with close family\"\". I.e do not charge your wife or living in partner rent. It mixes emotional domestic life with a formal business life which can set feuds going in case of a break up or dispute. If you enter into child bearing relationship or parent hood or formal partnership or marriage then all this changes at some time in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24f0a45be776167a3a06ee7f40b0aa6c",
"text": "It's fine - if you are an employee, you will normally have all taxes deducted by the employer, and won't even need to complete a tax return. Even if you do, all the figures will be on the P60 you get at the end of the year. If that's your only income, it's pretty easy to do. Remember, your taxes and your girlfriends are totally separate. It also doesnt matter where the money goes - you could be paid in cash or into any account, it's the fact that you earn it makes it taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba2dda2440aab1b0940b723689abe424",
"text": "I don't like it using percentages makes no sense. Find out what market value is for rent and pay 1/2 of that to your partner, adjust annually. You partner should be protected from inflation if he is going to invest in real estate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15d1ca497dfc22d7af0ebe893732281e",
"text": "\"There is a term for this. If you google \"\"House Hacking\"\" you will get lots of articles and advice. Some of it will pertain to multifamily properties but a good amount should be owner occupied and renting bedrooms. I would play with a mortgage calculator like Whats My Payment. Include Principle, interest, taxes and insurance see how much it will cost. At 110k your monthly fixed payments will depend on a number of factors (down payment, interest, real estate tax rate and insurance cost) but $700-$1000 would be a decent guess in my area. Going off that with two roommates willing to pay $500 a month you would have no living expenses except any maintenance or utilities. With your income I would expect you could make the payment alone if needed (and it may be needed) so it seems fairly low risk from my perspective. You need somewhere to live you are used to roommates and you can pay the entire cost yourself in a worst case. Some more things to consider.. Insurance will be more expensive, you want to ensure you as the landlord you are covered if anything happens. If a tenant burns down your house or trips and falls and decides to sue you insurance will protect you. Capital Expenses (CapEx) replacing things as they wear out. On a home the roof, siding, flooring and all mechanicals(furnace, water heater, etc.) have a lifespan and will need to be replaced. On rental properties a portion of rent should be set aside to replace these things in the future. If a roof lasts 20yrs,costs $8,000 and your roof is 10years old you should be setting aside $70 a month so in the future when this know expense comes up it is not a hardship. Taxes Yes there is a special way to report income from an arrangement like this. You will fill out a Schedule E form in addition to your regular tax documents. You will also be able to write off a percent of housing expenses and depreciation on the home. I have been told it is not a simple tax situation and to consult a CPA that specializes in real estate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dc94591caef35b599d2cdbe26bf6214",
"text": "Does your apartment have several bedrooms that are all different in size? If yes, then everyone can pay by square footage. However, if you share the room with your girlfriend, it won’t work. Even if your live in a master bedroom with her, you friend will probably pay more than your girlfriend. I heard there are websites that let each roommate bid the max they’re willing to pay for each room in the apartment. You can try one of these service. Or you can simply divide the rent between three of you, but utilities will be covered only by you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7f95cc4025e4ea768146ee2ac0997eb5
|
A check I received was lost. My options?
|
[
{
"docid": "4c38a224a7b26fa45a87c6115e016aa9",
"text": "Lost checks happen occasionally, and there are procedures in place (banking & business) to handle the situation. First and foremost you need to: Note: The money is legally yours, so the company is obligated to work with you here. If they refuse to cancel or reissue the check, at a minimum you'll want to contact the state government and let them know about the company's actions, if small claims court is not an option. Businesses aren't permitted to keep 'forfeited funds' in most states, instead they are required to turn them over to the government who would then return them to you when you ask for it. It's rather scummy of the government bureaucrats, because it puts them in the sole position to benefit from forgotten money, but that's the system we've given ourselves. Since you've moved overseas since the last time you worked with this company, you might need to exercise a little patience and be willing to jump through some hoops to get this resolved. Be prepared to provide them proof of who you are, and be ready to pay for extra security such as certified mail / FedEx so that you're both sure that the new check is delivered to you and only you. Last of all, learn from your mistake this time and be a little more cautious / proactive in keeping track of checks and depositing them in the future.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c27b0051ac85e22b49fa005196d2d05b",
"text": "You still owe the money because there is a high probability that some other organization bough the account and assets of the failed creditor. That means they will have bought your debt. I have to assume there is language in your note that explains that they might sell your debt. But what should one do if they don't know who bought the entity? You can't pay a non-existent entity, but if you don't have an address, how can you pay the new owner of the debt? First step, is to assume there will be a new owner. A government, a company, an individual; somebody will buy that debt. Read the news and see if you can't figure out what other entity owns your note. You might have to contact them to enquire about where to send payment. Keep records of any such contact. If you put in an honest effort, but just cannot figure out who owns your note, I'd suggest continuing to make regular on-time payments. But put your payments into a new bank account that you open just for this purpose. So when the new owner of the debt does come calling, you'll have reasonable proof you were attempting to pay. You simply settle up from the special account. Any reasonable company will just take the money, and if anybody gets unreasonable and you have to appear in court, you have a paper trail indicating your attempts to honour the debt. You'd have to consult a lawyer if nobody comes asking for the money. There are probably statutes of limitation, but I wouldn't count on that ever happening.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee6e7c24edf75cb54bb9377ca4d39ee8",
"text": "It's not your money. According to one article, the interest on the money could be negotiated in some cases to be yours, but I wouldn't plan on it. From MSN: According to a complaint filed by the state of Minnesota, the 37-year-old social worker received a $2.6 million payment from the state Department of Human Services that had been intended for a local hospital. Instead of immediately reporting the mistake, the woman and a friend opened investment accounts, bought jewelry, purchased four vehicles including two Land Rovers and spent $3,817 at Best Buy. Six weeks after getting the money, she called the Human Services Department to ask why the check had been sent to her, according to the complaint. When informed the payment was an error and the money had to be returned, the woman reportedly told the department to talk to her attorney and refused to respond to follow-up calls. As the prosecutor said to a St. Paul Pioneer Press reporter, there's a big difference between keeping money when you can't reasonably be expected to determine the true owner -- like that $20 bill on the street -- and keeping money when you can. The state had the pair's accounts frozen and is prosecuting for theft as well as civil charges, though the woman returned the unspent money and the property she bought. More from MSN Money A better approach to an unexplained windfall is to keep the money in a separate account while you track down the source. Who gets to keep the interest earned will be one of those things you work out with the rightful owner's attorneys. Bankrate has a similar story posted as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "719f1685a89d9fb9de133c901e3092fc",
"text": "Have the check reissued to the proper payee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f1f8ff31dd3660e2605889bd69b79fc",
"text": "They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.",
"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": "dbc64c870685d9d3c4e4e506ee4e6c5f",
"text": "I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf71d5a84316745ad55ad0519e6ee5db",
"text": "\"What does it mean that the bank will \"\"hold you responsible\"\"? Clearly the money won't be credited. Will you be charged a fee like an NSF cheque? Will they try to prosecute you? Is there any way to confirm whether a cashiers cheque is forged? Could you for example tell your bank that you were uncertain of the origin, and ask them to confirm it? Can you call the issuer and verify (from the serial number) that they did in fact issue a cheque for that amount with you as the payee? Even calling the bank might not help. The first verification is that the bank exists, and that the account number and name match and that they did issue a check. But that doesn't cover the situation where the person that sent you the check wasn't who they claimed to be. That is the theft that could take weeks to find.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "288030820e1d78decd491525378e6253",
"text": "\"There are at least three financial institutions involved here: your insurance company's bank, the money center, and your bank. Normally, they would keep records, but given that the money center didn't even ask for your signature, \"\"normal\"\" probably doesn't apply to them. Still, you can still ask them what records they have, in addition to the other two institutions; the company's bank and your bank likely have copies of the check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bb78deeb91af610c9616f3121904d4e",
"text": "\"First, congratulations on the paycheck! :-) On the holds: Is it possible that by allowing your account balance to go negative (into overdraft) that you triggered such treatment of your account? Perhaps the bank is being more cautious with your account since that happened. Just how long did you have their $150 on hold? ;-) Or, perhaps it's not you specifically but the bank is being more cautious due to credit conditions that have been prevalent these last years. Consider: allowing you to cash a check immediately – when it technically hasn't cleared yet – is a form of credit. Maybe it isn't you they don't trust well enough yet, but the company that issued the check? Checks bounce, and not by fault of the depositor. I once had a new account, years ago, and discovered a 5 day hold on deposits. The irony was it was a check drawn on the same bank! I called my banker and asked about it – and suggested I'd take my business back to my old bank. I was in the process of applying for a mortgage with the new bank. Holds were removed. But you may have some trouble with the \"\"I'll walk\"\" technique given the climate and your recent overdraft situation and no leverage – or if you do have some leverage, consider using it. But before you assume anything, I would, as JohnFx suggested, ask your bank about it. Pay your branch a visit in person and talk to the manager. Phone calls to customer service may be less successful. If it's not a big issue and more a minor technical policy one, the bank may remove the holds. If they won't, the manager ought to tell you why, and what you can do to solve it eventually.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2c8ee8ee3ef896bb3dc414204aa9de5",
"text": "Citibank just sent me a $100 check. Here's how I got it:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f69580b17dd1e0f0938967cdcd6d0f",
"text": "\"Did I do anything wrong by cashing a check made out to \"\"trustee of <401k plan> FBO \"\", and if so how can I fix it? I thought I was just getting a termination payout of the balance. Yes, you did. It was not made to you, and you were not supposed to even be able to cash it. Both you and your bank made a mistake - you made a mistake by depositing a check that doesn't belong to you, and the bank made a mistake by allowing you to deposit a check that is not made out to you to your personal account. How do I handle the taxes I owe on the payout, given that I had a tax-free 1099 two years ago and no 1099 now? It was not tax free two years ago. It would have been tax free if you would forward it to the entity to which the check was intended - since that would not be you. But you didn't do that. As such, there was no withdrawal two years ago, and I believe the 401k plan is wrong to claim otherwise. You did however take the money out in 2014, and it is fully taxable to you, including penalties. You should probably talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). My personal (and unprofessional) opinion is that you didn't withdraw the money in 2012 since the check was not made out to you and the recipient never got it. You did withdraw money in 2014 since that's when you actually got the money (even if by mistake). As such, I'd report this withdrawal on the 2014 tax return. However, as I said, I'm not a professional and not licensed to provide tax advice, so this is my opinion only. I strongly suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser to get a proper opinion and guidance on the matter. If it is determined that the withdrawal was indeed in 2012, then you'll have to amend the 2012 tax return, report the additional income and pay the additional tax (+interest and probably underpayment penalty).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50f6d3b54844133f771525f6a664b3b",
"text": "\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"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": "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
|
34a59182681916c47be07657e67c4479
|
Are stock investments less favorable for the smaller investor?
|
[
{
"docid": "c3659ad6a4c1d4d2f9e0aa0439187186",
"text": "You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e3309d191d613404bd65a9a8a47dd1f",
"text": "If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same. When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably. If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares. Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "21253916624b7918f6c3709e9a984172",
"text": "Its pretty much always a positive to have large institutional investors. Here's a few cases where I can see an argument against large institutional investors: In recent years, we've seen corporate raiders and institutional investors that tend to influence management in ways that are focused on short term gain. They'll often go for board seats and disrupt the existing management team. It can serve as a distraction and really hurt morale. Institutional investors also have rules in their prospectus that they are required to abide by. For example, some institutional investors will not hold on to stock below $5. This really affected major banking stocks, some of which ended up doing reverse stock splits to keep their share price high. Institutional investors will also setup specific funds that require a stock to be listed as part of an index (i.e. the SPY, DJIA etc.,). When a stock is removed from an index, big investors leave quickly and the share price suffers. In recent months, companies like Apple have made their share price more affordable to attract retail investors. It gives an opportunity for retail to feel even more connected to the company. I'm not sure how much this affects overall sales... Generally, a good stock should be able to attract both retail and institutional investors. If there's not a good mix, then its usually a sign that somethings amiss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de2442349928571c8c1fd0025617a775",
"text": "More questions! 1.) I thought the criticism of the Dow was that it's much smaller than other indexes and thus less representative of the market as a whole? 2,) When you say private investors are you talking about a few specific people? Or anyone who invests at all? Thanks",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea17710a4fd7f5570df071d180f65a63",
"text": "\"It appears that there's a confusion between the different types of average. Saying \"\"the average investor\"\" generally means the most common type of small-scale unsophisticated investor - the mode (or possibly median) investor. However, while this class of investors is numerous, each of them has assets that are quite small compared to some other types of investors; and the market average performance is determined proportionally to the amount of assets held, not to the number of holders; so the performance of large investors \"\"counts\"\" that much more. For any measure, the mode of performance can be (and often is) different from the mean performance - in this case, Dalbar is saying that the most common results are lower than the (weighed) average results.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c6ab5bb3293780622eb0644d28f7890",
"text": "The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8322c9d7eca2e486c8147430074bb7",
"text": "One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ef5ae799f8b31bb763122fa08838f1e",
"text": "Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77",
"text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8857170018f503149b7d0033ac8cbc9f",
"text": "It's great that you have gotten the itch to learn about the stock market. There are a couple of fundamentals to understand first though. Company A has strong, growing, net earnings and minimal debt, it's trading for $100 per share. Company B has good revenue but high costs of goods and total liabilities well in excess of total assets, it's trading for $0.10 per share. There is no benefit to getting 10,000 shares or 10 shares for your $1,000. Your goal is to invest in companies that have valuable products and services run by competent management teams. Sure, the number of shares you own will dictate what percentage of the company you own, and in a number of cases, your voting power. But even a penny stock will have a market capitalization of several million dollars so voting power isn't really a concern for your $1,000 investment. There is a lot more in the three basic financial statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows) than revenue. Seasoned accountants can have a hard time parsing out where money is coming from and where it's going. In general there are obvious red flags, like a fast declining cash balance against a fast growing liabilities balance or expenses exceeding revenue. While some of these things are common among new and high growth companies, it's not the place for a new investor with a small bankroll. A micro-cap company (penny stocks are in this group) will receive rounds of financing via issuing preferred convertible shares which may include options on more shares. For a company worth $20mm a $5mm financing round can materially change the finances of a company, and will likely dilute your holdings in common stock. Small growth companies need new financing frequently to fund their growth strategies. Revenue went up, great... why? Did you open another store? Did you open another sales office? Did the revenue increase this quarter based on substantially the same operation that existed last quarter or have you increased the capacity of your operation? If you increased the capacity of your operation what was the cost of the increase and did revenue increase as expected? Can you expect revenue to continue to grow at this rate or was it a one time windfall from an unusual order? Sure, there are spectacular gains to be had in penny stocks. XYZ Pharma Research (or whatever) goes from $0.05 to $0.60 and you've turned your $1,000 in to $12,000. This is a really unlikely event... Buying penny stocks is akin to buying lottery tickets. Unless you are a high ranking employee at the company capable of making decisions, or one of the investors buying the preferred shares mentioned in point 3, or are one of the insiders of a pump and dump scam on the stock, penny common stocks are not a place to invest. One could argue that even a company insider should probably avoid buying common stock. Just to illustrate the points above, you mention: Doing some really heavy research into this stock has made me question the whole penny stock market. Based on your research what is the enterprise value of the company? What were the gross proceeds of the last financing round, how many shares were issued and were there any warrants attached? What do you perceive to be heavy research? What background do you have in finance/accounting to give weight to your ability to perform such research? Crawl. Walk. Then run. Don't kid yourself in to thinking that since you have some level of education you understand the contracts involved in enterprise finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "951b9b0fce84b385eb005e407056b51a",
"text": "Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02cf1973bc8bfdb5930a3f0b20037ecd",
"text": "By exploiting institutional investors, HFT does hurt small investors. People with pension, mutual, and index funds get smaller returns. Endowment funds are also going to get hurt which hurts hospitals, schools, charities, and other institutions that work for the public good. I agree with you though. At this point we would likely be just arguing semantics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1cf18975c984604687f3099d5817b239",
"text": "Yes, you should own a diverse mix of company sizes to be well diversified. While both will probably get hit in a recession, different economies suit different sized companies very differently in many cases, and this diversity positions you best to not only not miss out in cases where small companies do better out of recessions than large, but also in environments where small companies rate of growth is larger in bull markets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7edf5d450d98f1513b4faaa546c6202e",
"text": "No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "699cc6e9542068712bf23b3cc1e56b16",
"text": "\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9",
"text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
95624f416afcd78d8d6c5b90d6b77d7e
|
Primary Residence to Investment Property - Changing PMI Terms
|
[
{
"docid": "68642bb5b333c7a9d73475cbedecadc0",
"text": "You could be in a bit of a bind. I wouldn't push it any more until you read your loan papers very carefully. Going back to the lender for a refinance after you converted it to a rental (presumably without their knowledge) is risky. I doubt they'd let you refinance anyway, as the house is underwater. If the loan is performing then I wouldn't think they'd look too hard for reasons to upset the flow of checks by calling the loan due, but if you brazenly advertise the change of property use to them they may reconsider. Read your loan papers carefully to see what they can do before you lean on them too much. As for managing the finances on that property, I'd build up a cushion to deal with the fact that your payment is going to shoot up considerably in year 8. Also consider building up a side business to get another income stream going to compensate as well. You have a little time before it shoots up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "849865233681cf162c72b2fb2ed4fc5a",
"text": "\"Do you now own your new home, or are you renting? This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote \"\"shoot up considerably.\"\" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have. There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out. (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original \"\"interest only\"\" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)\"",
"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": "d752be341408de731a2bc853084a3a67",
"text": "You should very much nail down your planned expenses and profit. However beyond that you may have some better options to avoid taxation assuming all your plans go well. You should take into account the ability to avoid taxes on the sale of a primary residence. You could build the spec house, then move into the spec house. You could then sell the primary (avoiding any profit less than $500k filing jointly, assuming you meet the Home Sale Tax Exclusion requirements). You can then in another two years or so sell the spec house if you want and again avoid up to $500k in profit. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-250000500000-home-sale-tax-exclusion.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5539e69e711f952447c4be73612b1556",
"text": "Typically, this is not an option, as the monthly payments are fixed. It depends on the willingness of your financing bank for such a change. You probably will have to refinance (with them or another lender); which is not a bad thing, as you even can get a lower interest rate potentially (as of Jan 2017 - this will change). Consider too: It could be a better solution to instead invest the 25000, and use the investment returns to fill up the difference every month. Certainly more effort, but you probably come out ahead financially.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18a4acfd33c5b0a9aca4a2a2e35d466f",
"text": "The issue here is that the transaction (your funds to her account) looks very similar to the rent payments which you plan to make in the future. Those rental payments (if deemed to be commercial) would normally be subject to tax. Consider the scenario where rather than an up front $5000, and $5000 over 2 years, you paid her $10000, and paid no rent. That might be an attempt to avoid paying tax. A commercial transaction can't be re-labeled as a gift just based on your election - the transaction needs to be considered as a whole. However, an interest free, unsecured loan connected with you paying rent at market rate would be (depending on local laws) simply foolish (to some extent). I don't think you are able to structure the transaction as a joint purchase (since the mortgage will prevent her from allocating a part of the property to you). Its also likely that you can live in her house and contribute an adequate amount to the household costs without creating a taxable income for her. For example in the UK, up to ~£4000 pa rental income generated from the property in which you reside does not need to be declared. You need to identify the scenarios where your particular arrangement could be imagined as resulting in a taxable or potentially taxable event - then make sure you are not avoiding those events just by choosing how you label the events.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b325654181d951f0e841dc9a11bba72",
"text": "Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a62f37b34eba5991155bb33948b3dbf5",
"text": "It might some but I'd wager it pushes the short-term rental pricing down (like hotels) while pushing the long-term rental and housing market prices up. If landlords can make way more in short-term rentals they are going to do that and limit the supply of long-term. The tourism sector may have increased revenue but by what extent I don't know. I'd wager that exploding rent and housing prices will negate any benefits for most residents and may end up costing them much more. This is why I think you should only be able to do it on your primary residence. Unless you want to be regulated like a hotel because if you have short-term rentals that you don't reside in, that is effectively what you are. Not being regulated the same as a hotel at that point only gives you an unfair loophole advantage to other short-term rentals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd7a5171dedfacb077ee12a843c6a8ce",
"text": "Danger. The affidavit is a legal document. Understand the risk of getting caught. If you are planning on using the condo to generate income the chances that you default on the loan are higher than an owner occupied property. That is why they demand more down payment (20%+) and charge a higher rate. The document isn't about making sure you spend 183+ nights a year in the property, it is making sure that it isn't a business, and you aren't letting a 3rd party live in the property. If you within the first year tell the mortgage company to send the bill to a new address, or you change how the property is insured, they will suspect that it is now a rental property. What can they do? Undo the loan; ask for penalty fee; limit your ability to get a mortgage in the future; or a percentage of the profits How likely is it? The exact penalty will be in the packet of documents you receive. It will depend on which government agency is involved in the loan, and the lenders plan to sell it on the secondary market. It can also depend on the program involved in the sale of the property. HUD and sister agencies lock out investors during the initial selling period, They don't want somebody to represent themselves as homeowner, but is actually an investor. Note: some local governments are interested not just in non-investors but in properties being occupied. Therefore they may offer tax discounts to residents living in their homes. Then they will be looking at the number of nights that you occupy the house in a year. If they detect that you aren't really a resident living in the house, that has tax penalties. Suggestion: If you don't want to wait a year buy the condo and let the loan officer know what your plan is. You will have to meet the down payment and interest rate requirements for an investment property. Your question implies that you will have enough money to pay the required 20% down payment. Then when you are ready buy the bigger house and move in. If you try and buy the condo with a non-investment loan you will have to wait a year. If you try and pay cash now, and then get a home equity loan later you will have to admit it is a rental. And still have to meet the investor requirements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "085a94a725d272cdc5a10c0e125a378b",
"text": "I realize this question is a few years old now, but I wanted to address one of the OP's questions that hadn't been answered yet (my answer is framed as though the question were recent): However, on the plus side, the monthly payment would likely be $200 less/mo with this house vs our current rent. On a 30 year mortgage it would be almost $3-400 less. This makes me think that I could use the difference to pay directly toward the principal each month. Is my logic sound? The way amortization works, if the interest rate between 30 and 15 were the same, then making principal-only prepayments on the 30 year to cover the difference in monthly payments would result in the exactly the same schedule as if you did minimum payments on the 15-year - i.e. the numbers would be practically indistinguishable. Of course, in practice the interest rate is slightly better on the 15-year, which makes the 30-year with prepayments compare slightly less favorably. If you're confident that you'll be able to reliably keep up with the monthly payments, the 15-year would minimize the total amount of interest you pay, and help you get off of PMI slightly faster. But the 30-year w/ prepayments gives you the option to skip a prepayment or two if you run into any financial difficulty, which is a nice option to have. But you do have to be disciplined about making the prepayments every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "febd8fd807124b45ff926beb8203609a",
"text": "You're talking about porting your mortgage, which may be possible if your mortgage was portable to start with, or if your bank subsequently allows it. Note that although porting a mortgage involves keeping most of the original terms and conditions, the process is still much like applying for a new mortgage, including any lending requirements. Here's an article on the subject. EDIT: In response to OP's comment below: What will happen to the first property if I don't sell it? Because porting a mortgage is treated as if you were closing one mortgage and opening a new one, this means that you would need to pay off the first mortgage. Typically this would be done by selling the first property at the same time that you buy the second one. However, if you're not doing this, you'll need to raise funds another way, which could include opening a new mortgage on the first property (of course, if you're doing that, then there would have to be a good reason for porting the original mortgage; otherwise you might as well leave it where it is, and open a new mortgage on the second property instead). Does the article apply the to USA too? That article (and indeed this answer) are based on the situation in the UK. However, they appear to exist in the US too, though are rarer than in the UK.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4abdf55b8e3aee2b6ddfaed7e3f5b5ee",
"text": "Your biggest concern will be what happens during the transition period. In the past when my employer made a switch there has been a lockout period where you couldn't move money between funds. Then over a weekend the money moved from investment company A to investment Company B. All the moves were mapped so that you knew which funds your money would be invested in, then staring Monday morning you could switch them if you didn't like the mapping. No money is lost because the transfer is actually done in $'s. Imagine both investment companies had the same S&P 500 fund, and that the transfer takes a week. If when the first accounts are closed the S&P500 fund has a share value of $100 your 10 hares account has a value of $1000. If the dividend/capital gains are distributed during that week; the price per share when the money arrives in the second investment company will now be $99. So that instead of 10 shares @ $100 you now will buy 10.101 shares @ $99. No money was lost. You want that lookout period to be small, and you want the number of days you are not invested in the market to be zero. The lockout limits your ability to make investment changes, if for instance the central bank raises rates. The number of days out of the market is important if during that period of time there is a big price increase, you wouldn't want to miss it. Of course the market could also go lower during that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0019ab3a4683b725b726fef151919e7",
"text": "Given that utilizing all the funds available to you drains your retirement and leaves you with very little cushion for unforeseen events (as already noted), it may be best to use a smaller amount for closing and just deal with the PMI for a couple years. PMI is likely less than the taxes/penalties incurred from withdrawing a full 20% + closing costs. Let alone the lost earning on the accounts (above your mortgage interest rate); but personally I think the stability of significant home equity is worth more than anticipated stock gains. I would recommend pulling enough to buy the house comfortably without dipping too deeply in any one area, while still paying down your balance to where you can eliminate PMI quickly (say 2-3 years). Your limits for each account are approximately: Roth IRAs: Traditional IRAs: Brokerage (non-retirement): Checking: Things to consider: If you are current on your payments, you can request PMI removal once your loan-to-value drops below 80% - it also terminates automatically when it is scheduled to drop below 78% (not if it actually has). Many loans have a 2 year minimum PMI period though, regardless of your Loan To Value (LTV) changes. LTV changes could be from:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f43f614ed6ecd58e76ad9cc3895c287",
"text": "If an entity or individual has full rights to the land and land improvements, they can hold, transfer, delegate, or dispose of them on their terms. The only exception may be eminent domain. If the sovereignty meets the public necessity or public purpose tests they can assume or change the rights to your property in exchange for compensation. As others have said writing your own mortgage falls under the category of seller financing. A seller can write a mortgage with the help of a loan servicing company. Some loan service companies report to credit agencies, to help with buyer refinancing at a later point. Other forms of seller financing: Leasing Land contracts mineral contracts and more... Additionally, the seller can finance the minority of the property, called a junior mortgage. For example, the Bank finances 79% of the value, the seller finances 11%, and the buyer's 10% down payment covers the rest. If the buyer defaults, the superior mortgage (bank's) has collection priority. More commonly, the seller can option for a wrap-around mortgage or an 'all-inclusive mortgage'. The seller holds or refinances the existing mortgage and provides a junior mortgage in exchange for a secured promissory note and an all-inclusive trust deed. If the buyer defaults, the seller has foreclosure rights. It is not uncommon for entities or people to use financing strategies other than the traditional mortgage if they are unable to exclude the gain on sale. Check out section 1031 exchanges. In almost all cases I would tell people not to make decisions based on tax consequences alone, if your financial objective/goal for seller financing sounds like a 1031 exchange, take exception and carefully consider the tax consequences.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe7d85584eb8be5e581108158378f96d",
"text": "If it is your primary residence and you lived there continuously and for more than 2 years out of the last 5 - then you can exclude the gain under the IRC Sec. 121. In this case, you'll pay no taxes on your gain. If the property has been a rental or you haven't lived there long enough, the rules become more complicated but you may still be able to exclude some portion of the gain, even all of it, depends on the situation. So it doesn't look like 1031 exchange is good for you here, you don't want to carry excluded gain - you want to recognize it and get the tax benefit. However, refinancing after purchase with cash-out money affects the deductability of the loan interest. You can only deduct interest on money used to buy, not cash-out portion. I believe there's a period (60 days IIRC) during which you can do the cash-out refinance and still count it as purchase money, but check with a licensed tax advier (EA/CPA licensed in your State).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e27bc823c5084e8b773ad79e47adfc0e",
"text": "\"You need to get the current tax software, the 2013 filing software is out already, even though it needs to update itself before filing, as the final forms aren't ready yet. Then you will look carefully at Schedule E to understand what gets written off. I see you are looking at the $2200 rent vs your own rent of $2100, but of course, the tax form doesn't care about your rent. You offset the expenses of that house against the income. The expenses are the usual suspects, mortgage interest, property tax, repairs, etc. But there's one big thing new landlords are prone to forgetting. Depreciation. It's not optional. Say the house cost you $400K. This is your basis. You need to separate the value of land which is not depreciated. For a condo with no land it can be as little as 10%, when we bought our house, for insurance purposes, the land was nearly 40% of the full value. Say you do the research and decide 30% (for land), then 70% = $280K. Depreciation is taken each year over a 27.5 year period, or just over $10,000 per year. (Note, the forms will help you get your year 1 number, as you didn't have a full year.) This depreciation helps with your cash flow during the year (as you should do the math, and if you keep the house, adjust your W4 withholdings for 2014, that lump sum you'll get in April won't pay the bills each month) but is 'recaptured' on sale. At some point in the future, you may save enough to buy a house where you wish to live, but need to sell the rental. Consider a 1031 Exchange. It's a way to sell a rental and buy a new one without triggering a taxable event. What I don't know is how long the new house must be a rental before the IRS would then allow you to move in. The same way you turned your home into a rental, a rental can be turned back to a primary residence. I just doubt you can do it right after the purchase. As fellow member @littleadv would advise, \"\"get professional advice.\"\" And he's right. I've just offered what you might consider. The first year tax return with that Schedule E is the toughest as it's brand new. The next year is simple in comparison. The question of selling immediately is tough. Only you can decide whether the risk of keeping it is too great. You're saying you don't have the money to cover two month's vacancy. That scares me. I'd focus on beefing up the emergency account. And securing a credit line. You mentioned the tax savings. My opinion is that for any investment,the tax tail should never wag the investing dog. Buy or sell a stock based on the stock, not the potential tax bill for the sale. In your situation, the rent and expenses will cancel each other, and the depreciation is a short term loan, from a tax perspective. If you sold today, what do you net? If you analyzed the numbers now, what is your true income from the property each year? Is that return worth it? A good property will provide cash flow, principal reduction each year, and normal increase in value. This takes a bit of careful looking at the numbers. You might feel you're just breaking even, but if the principal is $12K less after a year, that's something you shouldn't ignore. On the other hand, an exact 'break-even' with little equity at stake offered you a leveraged property where any gains are a magnified percentage of what you have at risk. Last - welcome to Money.SE - consider adding some more details to your profile.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001ad7f8030aa55b992aab75c2bd3b7d",
"text": "This is one way in which the scheme could work: You put your own property (home, car, piece of land) as a collateral and get a loan from a bank. You can also try to use the purchased property as security, but it may be difficult to get 100% loan-to-value. You use the money to buy a property that you expect will rise in value and/or provide rent income that is larger than the mortgage payment. Doing some renovations can help the value rise. You sell the property, pay back the loan and get the profits. If you are fast, you might be able to do this even before the first mortgage payment is due. So yeah, $0 of your own cash invested. But if the property doesn't rise in value, you may end up losing the collateral.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3320e1f405f93ed55abbdcfa0f47527d
|
When you're really young and have about 2K to start investing $ for retirement, why do some people advise you to go risky?
|
[
{
"docid": "dcb85e88d4c066807dd1b56c02535c74",
"text": "\"Why it is good to be risky The reason why it is good to be risky is because risky investments can result in higher returns on your money. The problem with being risky, is there is a chance you can lose money. However, in the long term you can usually benefit from higher returns even if you have a few slip ups. Let me show you an example: These two lines are based off of placing $2,000 in a retirement fund at age of 20 and then at age of 25 start investing $6,500 a year (based off of a salary of $65,000 with a company that will 1 to 1 match up to 5% IRA contribution, presumably someone with a Master's should be able to get this) and then being able to increase your contribution amount by $150 a year as your salary begins to increase as well. The blue line assumes that all of this money that you are putting in a retirement account has a fixed 3% interest (compounded yearly for simplicity sake) every year until you retire. The red line is earning a 12% interest rate while you are 20 years old and then decreasing by 0.5% per year until you retire. Since this is using more risky investments when you are younger, I have even gone ahead and included losing 20% of your money when you are 24, another 20% when you are 29, and then again another 20% when you are 34. As you can see, even with losing 20% of your money 3 different times, you still end up with more money then you would have had if you stuck with a more conservative investment plan. If I change this to 50% each 3 times, you will still come out about equal to a more conservative investment. Now, I do have these 3 loses placed at a younger age when there is less to lose, but this is to be expected since you are being more risky when you are young. When you are closer to retirement you have less of a chance of losing money since you will be investing more conservatively. Why it is OK to be risky when you are young but not old Lets say you loose 20% of your $2,000 when you are young, you have 30-40 years to make that back. That's roughly $1 a month extra that you are having to come up with. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are young, you have plenty of time to account for it before you retire. Now lets say you have $1,000,000 when you are 5 years from retiring and loose 20% of it, you have to come up with an extra $3,333 a month if you want to retire on time. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are close to retiring, you will most likely have to work for many more years just to be able to recover from your loses. What to invest in This is a little bit more difficult question to answer. If there was one \"\"right\"\" way to invest your money, every one would be doing that one \"\"right\"\" way and would result in it not turning out to be that good of investment. What you need to do is come up with a plan for yourself. My biggest advice that I can give is to be careful with fees. Some places will charge a fixed dollar amount per trade, while others might charge a fixed dollar amount per month, while even others might charge a percentage of your investment. With only having $2,000 to invest, a large fee might make it difficult to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4967fe2c74d0aeec195b34cb27b16a01",
"text": "\"First of all, \"\"going risky\"\" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into \"\"blue chips\"\" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6a4b614e25fe764d2a329c2265444da",
"text": "\"Those who say a person should invest in riskier assets when young are those who equate higher returns with higher risk. I would argue that any investment you do not understand is risky and allows you to lose money at a more rapid rate than someone who understands the investment. The way to reduce risk is to learn about what you want to invest in before you invest in it. Learning afterward can be a very expensive proposition, possibly costing you your retirement. Warren Buffet told the story on Bloomberg Radio in late 2013 of how he read everything in his local library on investing as a teenager and when his family moved to Washington he realized he had the entire Library of Congress at his disposal. One of Mr. Buffett's famous quotes when asked why he doesn't invest in the tech sector was: \"\"I don't invest in what I do not understand.\"\". There are several major asset classes: Paper (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currency), Commodities (silver, gold, oil), Businesses (creation, purchase or partnership as opposed to common stock ownership) and Real Estate (rental properties, flips, land development). Pick one that interests you and learn everything about it that you can before investing. This will allow you to minimize and mitigate risks while increasing the rewards.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7366cb823333bf38dfaed036b84e535e",
"text": "Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a73a32e9c0c175cc10a1014387ee433f",
"text": "\"Your are mixing multiple questions with assertions which may or may not be true. So I'll take a stab at this, comment if it doesn't make sense to you. To answer the question in the title, you invest in an IRA because you want to save money to allow you to retire. The government provides you with tax incentives that make an IRA an excellent vehicle to do this. The rules regarding IRA tax treatment provide disincentives, through tax penalties, for withdrawing money before retirement. This topic is covered dozens of times, so search around for more detail. Regarding your desire to invest in items with high \"\"intrinsic\"\" value, I would argue that gold and silver are not good vehicles for doing this. Intrinsic value doesn't mean what you want it to mean in this context -- gold and silver are commodities, whose prices fluctuate dramatically. If you want to grow money for retirement over a long period, of time, you should be invested in diversified collection of investments, and precious metals should be a relatively small part of your portfolio.\"",
"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": "1cc1cbf238b28b58a628df8b2952238f",
"text": "he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance. It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work. Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion. Period. It says nothing about your age. Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone. In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case. At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable. With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio. Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc3d48259d5f94ea4b2f9e5f8ee45386",
"text": "\"The same author wrote in that article “they have a trillion? Really?” But that’s what happens when ten million dollars compounds at 2% over 200 years. Really? 2% compounded over 200 years produces a return of 52.5X, multiply that by 10M and you have $525 million. The author is off by a factor of nearly 2000 fold. Let's skip this minor math error. The article is not about 401(k)s. His next line is \"\"The whole myth of savings is gone.\"\" And the article itself, \"\"10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014\"\" is really a manifesto about why working for the man is not the way to succeed long term. And in that regard, he certainly makes good points. I've read this author over the years, and respect his views. 9 of the 10 points he lists are clear and valuable. This one point is a bit ambiguous and falls into the overgeneraluzation \"\"Our 401(k) have failed us.\"\" But keep in mind, even the self employed need to save, and in fact, have similar options to those working for others. I have a Solo 401(k) for my self employment income. To be clear, there are good 401(k) accounts and bad. The 401(k) with fees above 1%/yr, and no matching, awful. The 401(k) I have from my job before I retired has an S&P index with .02%/yr cost. (That's $200/$million invested per year.) The 401(k) is not dead.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19",
"text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63ec4fb4b12a54a05717a90db2f6b3ac",
"text": "Day trading is probably the most often tried and failed activity in the financial world. People think they can parlay $1,000 investment into $1,000,000 in a week with little or no knowledge on how to evaluate stocks and or companies. They think they can just look at where the line graphs' been and forecast where it's going to be next week. Unfortunately if it were that simple everyone would be making money hand over fist in the market. So in short, the reason day trading is considered a risky venture is because most of the people that attempt to do it are willfully ignorant. They intentionally choose not to read about day trading. They intentionally choose not to learn about how to read a company's financial report and they intentionally choose not to learn how to compare one stock to another. They also don't consider the fact that most of their data is 15 or more min old because of the shady rules brokers have worked into the system. Real everyday investors that make money in the market do it by careful evaluation of the purchase they are about to make. Guess what, even they lose time to time. That's the game!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca3177affb79852e18be3648597ccfe",
"text": "Considering it's all to risky for me, outside of a blind 401k, just having money to try it with is a bigger risk than I'm willing to take. I see this complaint a lot and my response is about the same every time, if you know of something better, please share, so next time we can make it more realistic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb1442dc3f4f3e60bf8c5d6bcbaed8b8",
"text": "\"My gut is to say that any time there seems to be easy money to be made, the opportunity would fade as everyone jumped on it. Let me ask you - why do you think these stocks are priced to yield 7-9%? The DVY yields 3.41% as of Aug 30,'12. The high yielding stocks you discovered may very well be hidden gems. Or they may need to reduce their dividends and subsequently drop in price. No, it's not 'safe.' If the stocks you choose drop by 20%, you'd lose 40% of your money, if you made the purchase on 50% margin. There's risk with any stock purchase, one can claim no stock is safe. Either way, your proposal juices the effect to creating twice the risk. Edit - After the conversation with Victor, let me add these thoughts. The \"\"Risk-Free\"\" rate is generally defined to be the 1yr tbill (and of course the risk of Gov default is not zero). There's the S&P 500 index which has a beta of 1 and is generally viewed as a decent index for comparison. You propose to use margin, so your risk, if done with an S&P index is twice that of the 1X S&P investor. However, you won't buy S&P but stocks with such a high yield I question their safety. You don't mention the stocks, so I can't quantify my answer, but it's tbill, S&P, 2X S&P, then you.\"",
"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": "6a3ec9b0c7870ef5eef3a926d09037f6",
"text": "\"There are no risk-free high-liquidity instruments that pay a significant amount of interest. There are some money-market accounts around that pay 1%-2%, but they often have minimum balance or transaction limits. Even if you could get 3%, on a $4K balance that would be $120 per year, or $10 per month. You can do much better than that by just going to $tarbucks two less times per month (or whatever you can cut from your expenses) and putting that into the savings account. Or work a few extra hours and increase your income. I appreciate the desire to \"\"maximize\"\" the return on your money, but in reality increasing income and reducing expenses have a much greater impact until you build up significant savings and are able to absorb more risk. Emergency funds should be highly liquid and risk-free, so traditional investments aren't appropriate vehicles for them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "385ba47d261184ee65a0837ba5d7850c",
"text": "I believe it is because you can withstand a loss in your early life better than you can in your retirement. If you lose 25% in your 20s it is a lot less than 25% in your 60s. You, hopefully earn more in your 60s and you have a lot more already in the bank in your 60s.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19a399279fa3d682c76b0f1cb8422a2e",
"text": "IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4ec080f48901e5d1591782ca087bcba",
"text": "The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36706f4360e99cea6ac360524843ed67",
"text": "Well, whats the source of income from? Social security? Dividends? At 40k that's the good thing about a progressive tax, you wouldn't be taxed heavily. Even 40k of capital gains, which lets be honest is mostly high income individuals, is barely taxed at a higher level than that 40,000k from a fixed income source. Again, that's the gain (aka profit) one is receiving from selling shares of a company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
98c60927ba1a8a9c61a51dd63bb841c1
|
how late can i put money into an IRA and still have it count for 2015?
|
[
{
"docid": "30d26506281284eab2c895db7afc9247",
"text": "The IRA contribution for the year are allowed until the tax day of that year. I.e.: you can contribute for 2015 until April 15th, 2016 (or whatever the first business day is after that, if the 15th is a holiday). You'll have to explicitly designate your contribution for 2015, since some of the IRA providers may automatically designate the current year unless you explicitly say otherwise. If that happens - it will be very hard to fix later, so pay attention when you're making the contribution. You get a couple of things from your IRA provider: Form 5498 - details your contributions for the year, account FMV, and RMD details. You can see the actual form here. You don't always get this form, if you didn't contribute anything and no RMD is required for you. Since the last day to contribute is April 15th, these forms are usually being sent out around mid-May. But you should know how much you've contributed by the tax day without it, obviously, so this is only for the IRS matching and your record-tracking. Form 1099-R includes information about distributions (including withdrawals and roll-overs). You may not get this form if you didn't take any money out of your IRA. These come out around end of January.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "34d57c7a08a5dd688d106df63ac97be0",
"text": "If for any tax year, you were eligible to make deductible contributions to a Traditional IRA, and did make the contributions in timely fashion, then there is no need to file Form 8606 for that year. Form 8606 (which tracks your basis in the IRA) is needed if Form 8606 is also needed if",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8652690b85960261fc5a633ff007bb28",
"text": "The deposit slip at the institution that keeps your Roth IRA should have a place where you can designate the tax year the contribution should apply to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79f3d2a1c18ab3374007ebd4c17e6373",
"text": "Yes. In fact, it's explicitly mentioned in Publication 590-A that you can file before making the contribution, as long as you make the contribution before the deadline. Filing before a contribution is made. You can file your return claiming a traditional IRA contribution before the contribution is actually made. Generally, the contribution must be made by the due date of your return, not including extensions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b7de5e740d5094e8061e5b6424c1618",
"text": "\"Does your company offer a 401(k) and are you taking maximum advantage of it? 2015 limit is $18,000, an extra $5,500 if you are 50 or older. The RMD shouldn't be too large, it depends on your age, of course. You're in no worse shape than anyone hitting age 70-1/2 and having to start taking their RMDs. If you are younger, your RMDs start pretty low. If I look at Pub 590, I find a 50 year old starts with a 34.2 divisor, less than 3% each year. At 60, it's 25.2, just under 4%. Edit - someone around 30 will have a divisor around 53.3 the first year. Just under 2%. I don't know what you consider \"\"sizable,\"\" but much above $300K in that IRA and you'll have more come out than you can fund into a Roth. Regardless of the amount, the RMD is taxable. You just need to pay the tax from other funds if you wish to keep the money invested as it was. You will pay the tax at your marginal rate, and that's it. This is the one downside of the inherited IRA, unlike regular money, it doesn't escape taxes. But, your dad put it in pre-tax (right?) so the amount you got is larger for that fact. I'm sorry for your loss.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bc803125b38e57e3a516fb35db4cec8",
"text": "You can have a new ISA every financial year. As long as you don't take out any other ISA in the financial year that starts next week, you can use a help-to-buy ISA as your ISA for 2015/16. Existing ISAs taken out in earlier financial years will have no effect on that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b5299b36809693159c9eb8cc0957db2",
"text": "Yes. Of course, you still need to take into the account the trade costs (fees paid to the broker), these are not going anywhere. Basically what it means is that you don't have to worry about long/short holding period within the IRA, they're all the same. It doesn't mean that long term trading is better or worse to have outside the scope of IRA, it just means that the concept doesn't exist inside.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66cf187d12586eeea3f8f22c2d71bc0e",
"text": "According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year.",
"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": "19f9a0f8c9f6abd42a257e6869e6b3b8",
"text": "\"This may be more of a comment than an answer, but it's too long for a comment. Perhaps the Stackexchange Gods will forgive my impudence. That said: Even with the tax penalties, it can be to your advantage to put money into a \"\"retirement\"\" account and withdraw it before retirement. The trick is: Is the amount of the tax penalty more than the benefit of untaxed compound growth? For example, just to make up some numbers: Suppose you have $1000 of gross income to invest. You are considering whether to invest in an ordinary, non-tax favored account, or a classic IRA. Either way you will get 10% returns. Your tax rate, both when you put the money in and when you take it out, is 15%. There is a 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal. With an ordinary account you will pay 15% tax off the top, so you are only investing $850. Then each year 15% of your returns are paid in taxes, so your net return is 8.5%. But when you withdraw the money there are no additional taxes. With an IRA you do not pay any taxes up front, so you can invest the entire $1000. You collect 10% each year with no taxes. When you withdraw, you pay 15% plus the 10% penalty equals 25%. So after 5 years, the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^5 = $1504. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^5 x 0.75 = $1208. The tax penalty hurts. You are better to use the ordinary account. But if you could leave your money in for 25 years, then the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^25 = $7687. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^25 x 0.75 = $8126. The IRA, even with the tax penalty, is better. Of course my numbers are just made up. What your tax bracket is, what returns you get, and how long you think you might leave the money in the investment, all vary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d25e0544d7c8f33c5e088114db9e920",
"text": "\"You must have $x of taxable income that year in order to make a contribution of $x to IRA for that year. It doesn't matter where the actual \"\"money\"\" that you contribute comes from -- for tax purposes, all that matters is the total amount of taxable income and the total amount of contributions; how you move your money around or divide it up is irrelevant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b05d513efe535e3d85ad0c3a1da3cd4",
"text": "Yes, you can make contributions to your HSA for 2013 until April 15, 2014. However, when you make the contribution, you need to explicitly tell the financial institution that your deposit is for tax year 2013, as they will be reporting to the IRS your total 2013 contributions after April 15. If you haven't filed your tax return for 2013 yet, you can wait until you make your final HSA contribution for 2013, and then file (before April 15). Otherwise, if you have already filed for 2013, and you make another HSA contribution for 2013, you'll need to file an amended return in order to claim the additional deduction. One more piece of advice: Don't wait until the last day to make this contribution. Make your final contribution at least a week early. Each year here on the site we get some questions from people who made an HSA or IRA contribution on April 15, only to be told by the bank that they missed some internal bank deadline by a few hours. There is no need to wait until the last day; don't cut it too close.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caddb541d782824ef7cde986747e0d09",
"text": "\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \"\"tax-free\"\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b92b4f26aafa7209e262673ddf9835ef",
"text": "Your Simple IRA account is yours and yours alone, not your employer's. The only thing your employer can do with it is putting more money into it. The best option is to simple let it sit for the two years, and then either:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49db93a60acf8d9b2a5a8d5ef79c49e5",
"text": "\"I disagree with the IRA suggestion. Why IRA? You're a student, so probably won't get much tax benefits, so why locking the money for 40 years? You can do the same investments through any broker account as in IRA, but be able to cash out in need. 5 years is long enough term to put in a mutual fund or ETF and expect reasonable (>1.25%) gains. You can use the online \"\"analyst\"\" tools that brokers like ETrade or Sharebuilder provide to decide on how to spread your portfolio, 15K is enough for diversifying over several areas. If you want to keep it as cash - check the on-line savings accounts (like Capitol One, for example, or Ally, ING Direct that will merge with Capitol One and others) for better rates, brick and mortar banks can not possible compete with what you can get online.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c52509438f7054dcf8206a78ae61d72",
"text": "\"Publication 590a covers this in a fairly specific manner. Page 11, section \"\"Are You Covered by an Employer Plan?\"\", specifies: The Form W-2 you receive from your employer has a box used to indicate whether you were covered for the year. The “Retirement Plan” box should be checked if you were covered. So, by default, if that's checked, you're covered. 590 does go into more detail, though. Assuming you're covered under a Defined Contribution plan (a 401k for example): Defined contribution plan. Generally, you are covered by a defined contribution plan for a tax year if amounts are contributed or allocated to your account for the plan year that ends with or within that tax year. Tax Year: Tax year. Your tax year is the annual accounting period you use to keep records and report income and expenses on your income tax return. For almost all people, the tax year is the calendar year. Further, they cover issues related to an employee leaving Dec. 31 very specifically: A special rule applies to certain plans in which it is not possible to determine if an amount will be contributed to your account for a given plan year. If, for a plan year, no amounts have been allocated to your account that are attributable to employer contributions, employee contributions, or forfeitures, by the last day of the plan year, and contributions are discretionary for the plan year, you are not covered for the tax year in which the plan year ends. If, after the plan year ends, the employer makes a contribution for that plan year, you are covered for the tax year in which the contribution is made. Example: Example. Mickey was covered by a profit-sharing plan and left the company on December 31, 2014. The plan year runs from July 1 to June 30. Under the terms of the plan, employer contributions do not have to be made, but if they are made, they are contributed to the plan before the due date for filing the company's tax return. Such contributions are allocated as of the last day of the plan year, and allocations are made to the accounts of individuals who have any service during the plan year. As of June 30, 2015, no contributions were made that were allocated to the June 30, 2015, plan year, and no forfeitures had been allocated within the plan year. In addition, as of that date, the company was not obligated to make a contribution for such plan year and it was impossible to determine whether or not a contribution would be made for the plan year. On December 31, 2015, the company decided to contribute to the plan for the plan year ending June 30, 2015. That contribution was made on February 15, 2016. Mickey is an active participant in the plan for his 2016 tax year but not for his 2015 tax year. Mickey is in a similar (but different) circumstance, and it's clear from the IRS's treatment of his circumstance that you would be in the same boat (just a year less off) - but be aware given Mickey's situation that it's theoretically possible for them to make another contribution next year, as Mickey had, depending on when their plan year/etc. ends. So - from the IRS's point of view, everything you said the company did is correct. They paid you in January, contributed to your 401k as a result of that paycheck, and thus you were officially considered covered for 2015.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.