Datasets:
nthakur-backup
/
bge-retrieval-data-ivf-query-pruning-fixed-200K

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
query_id
stringlengths
32
32
query
stringlengths
5
4.91k
positive_passages
listlengths
1
22
negative_passages
listlengths
9
100
subset
stringclasses
7 values
dff1b8cbb6012a2ecbb570f1114697e8
Why can't the Fed lower interest rates below zero?
[ { "docid": "8581237521e013efb99dba1ca0c48598", "text": "Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore. I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months. Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28187df0941807dfabb9cb1a848d3531", "text": "\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25294ecedfdae6c44ced49fb23f14779", "text": "\"If the Federal Reserve were to pay banks to hold money, they would need to get the money from somewhere to do so. They would have three options: Go to Congress, and request and authorization of funds. As an quasi-independent entity, however, it would be both highly unorthodox for an institution to diminish its own authority by requesting funding, and politically difficult for the Congress to appropriate it. Transfer held-assets After QE & QE2, the Fed is now the holder of several assets (mortgages and the like) that are already unorthodox for it to hold. It acquired these assets in the first place to soak up excess demand. If these assets were transferred back to banks, it would have exactly the opposite effect - increasing supply and further suppressing the value of the assets they would be trying to shore up by lowering the interest rate. \"\"Print money\"\" The fed could raise the money supply by issuing new bonds. This is inherently inflationary, and while pretty much everyone agrees this isn't bad in the short run, there is already widespread fear that in the long run, QE by itself is going to unleash massive inflation once growth returns anyway. To keep \"\"pushing on this string\"\" would only excerabate these fears, and quite likely turn it into a self-fufilling prophecy. In short, the Fed \"\"could\"\" pay banks to hold money, but the political and economic consequences of raising the needed funds to do so would all undermine the institution or the desired effect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afcfaa3930781982e106f63f9e89ae04", "text": "Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future. Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :)", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "7573e4ed4182d7fe0dec027f67145669", "text": "\"Wiki's not entirely accurate. My conspiracy theorist answer is because the Fed is not a government entity, it gives them increased flexibility with decreased transparency and the ability to do what is necessary to keep the currency/economy afloat under the fiat money system. A good book I found on this is Ron Paul's \"\"End the Fed\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "629a1e69f2804a85212260c726c6c200", "text": "This is a good point. The problem is that we still use the central bank and interest rates to try to control the economy. This is the part that has failed. I would suggest adjusting government spending based on the economic situation (down in good times, up in bad times). I do believe this would prevent recessions but it has never been tried. only in desperate times like the japanese recession and our great depression does this get tried and in both times has been effective. This is the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aacc8dd785b7393fa395266b83fcde03", "text": "I agree. Since the Fed has been pursing all kinds of aggressive policies for years it saying things have gotten worse damages their reputation. This means it's either so clear it can't be ignored or is the first step in some other strong measures (leaving QE in place?). Either way, the fact the Fed is saying this is significant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cba82135c4def9b57bde82806051cac8", "text": "Next year, the Fed plans on unwinding the Bonds and MBS. They'll ramp up to $50 billion a month. At the same time we'll be selling Bonds on the market to finance the debt at a rate of $70 billion a month. I wonder who's going to have the cash to buy the Toxic MBS and the low yield Bonds they'll be unloading on top of the usual Bonds for future debt. Those Bonds will have to pay double digit rates before anyone will buy them. Future generations will just get even more screwed the way the Fed has it planned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f76bbd6a16d8ffce02efdb14a4d6b3a4", "text": "If such an investment existed, then why would the banks be parking their overnight funds with the Federal Reserve at an interest rate of pretty much nothing?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98098c944f7f21877eeeea7dfc8c7610", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-26/what-you-should-know-about-r) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > As the Federal Reserve gradually normalizes its monetary policy, market participants will hear a lot more about r*, the "Neutral rate of interest," which helps equilibrate financial markets when the economy is growing at potential and inflation remains contained and stable. > A gradual convergence of the policy rate to that level would allow, to adapt the phrase of Bridgewater Associates' Ray Dalio, a "Beautiful normalization" of monetary policies that is consistent with market stability and soundness. > While the r* concept is more relevant for advanced countries with mature financial systems, many emerging economies cannot avoid the consequences of related policy shortfalls even though these would be well beyond their borders. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6k3ex6/what_you_should_know_about_r/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~154803 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*: **financial**^#1 **policy**^#2 **market**^#3 **rate**^#4 **interest**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08ae45c25bb27e5167d571d0f6f23ba3", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/dealbook/libor-fca-banks-andrew-bailey.html) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The one-year Libor, which represents the rate of interest on a loan between banks to be paid back within a year, is the most commonly used index for mortgages in the United States, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. > "And while we have given our full support to encouraging panel banks to continue to contribute and maintaining Libor over recent years, we do not think markets can rely on Libor continuing to be available indefinitely.\"\" > Mr. Bailey said that the regulator had agreed with the panel banks to sustain Libor through 2021 to smooth a transition to new rates. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6r14fz/libor_brought_scandal_greatest_financial_scandal/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~180937 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*: **Libor**^#1 **rate**^#2 **bank**^#3 **over**^#4 **Financial**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91c691f7277145c079dcdfed47e71aba", "text": "Your thinking is a little extreme! V could go under... but chances are very remote. Similarly I can't answer if someone asks if the Feds can go under. Looking at our awesome debt levels and no way to dig out of it, that is definitely a possibility. But will it happen? Probably no.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4091a8bdaae487c454b2b0066b7b8a36", "text": "I disagree with his point about taking too long to tighten. With rates near zero and asset purchasing programs in place, if there were another crisis what tools does the FRB have? Establishing a broad clear path forward is the best course of action so that confidence is restored in the marketplace. Unfortunately things have moved very far very fast and it has increased inequality. If we tightened sooner and a crisis were to occur the FRB (and the US by proxy) would have been hamstrung for a decades; it took us 1 decade on the current path.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd93fb09596bdc0a25f25d6c4d426b78", "text": "First of all, that link is nonsense. I recommend you read the actual GAO audit report, which has 16T in *revolving loans* with only (if I recall) about 1.8T in actual loans at any one time. Secondly, every time I check the details of a claim from Bernie Sanders he has stretched the truth far beyond reasonable, mostly to keep his name in the news I expect. Now, there was nothing that secret about *anything* in that report that was not reported in GAO reports from earlier. This audit was done for political purposes mostly, and the Fed has audits done regularly, as I stated earlier. This too can be checked, and I recommened you do so rather than believe me or that story. That incident, as you call it, is already exceeding rare. You have to weigh the pros/cons of that incident (which as I pointed out is not really an incident) with the problems that arise when you make more transparent and governmental control of the Fed. If the Fed has a role in stabilizing the economy (which is it's mandate) and if many of the tools do not work as well with more transparency and if there is evidence across many countries that doing such things to the Fed will likely result in certain problems, then one should make that call. However, to want those changes made while being ignorant of the issues is a terrible idea, and it is the least informed that usually yell the loudest for such changes. This would not be a problem except then certain politicians realize they can get votes by pandering to the ignorant masses, which really leads to tanked economies. Find how many economies have been tanked by an independent central banks versus how many have been tanked by political forces meddling with their respective economies. Finally, I highly recommend anytime you read a story that sounds outrageous, track down the source material and read it yourself. If you cannot find source material, or they do not list it, then distrust them. You'll find 99/100 times the outrageousness is created by selectively pulling information from the actual reports. Then track down report sources, wherever possible. Etc. Seriously, read the actual report.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf3a242bd5867bd1ea8d2adf71e360c9", "text": "It's called carry-trade. They can borrow from governments that have 0% int rates, exchange it for dollars, and then buy u.s. treasuries. Japan would never ever raise their interest rates as their economy runs on keynesian fumes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "318d8f36eb6e2ab8c6c7ecbd948c3e6f", "text": "One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e383f03888247ea2380a334c0f3734c", "text": "\"Haha now there's two of you. I have two twits parrot squawking in my ears in stereo. Okay, so maybe you aren't from the US, in which case I can forgive your confusion and completely circular logic. You must have gone back to Wikipedia or something, because the IS and LM curves are not, in your words, operating without \"\"control by powerful offices in government.\"\" The IS and LM curve indeed cross at a level that is consistent with an equilibrium between income and expenditure's equilibirium with the money market. But that's just the label slapped on it, it's not determinative as some sort of naturally occurring law of economics in our society. No, these things don't just happen on their own. If what you're inartfully implying were true, then there would be no such thing as an expansionary or contractionary monetary policy. Manipulating and controlling the money supply is the entire reason for the existence of the Federal Reserve! What is wrong with you? Go read a book or something on it, fuck me. The Federal Reserve, by setting interest rates mainly, and by open market operations, and by less frequently changing the reserve requirements which directly controls the MONEY MULTIPLIER (you know, that thing that creates money out of thin air you seem to not be able to understand exists?) is constantly changing AGGREGATE DEMAND in the economy. Aggregate demand is what the ISLM curve is about. It's about the equilibrium between price levels and the level of economic OUTPUT DEMANDED. But not supplied. That's aggregate supply, and the Federal Reserve effects that less. But yes, you've simply expanded the scope of things I could talk about that are fucked up about banks and the Fed in particular, because the Federal Reserve, in manipulating aggregate demand for money, actually is destroying money and the efficient use of money at the same time, because the LM curve in particular really represents the relationship between REAL income and the REAL money supply. Real means not nominal, but in actual purchasing terms. The Fed is manipulating an LM curve that at its base is a piece of logic built on the assumption that what's going into it are real numbers, and yet by definition, the Fed acting to manipulate it makes those numbers not determined by purely market forces, but also by the Fed. That makes them less than real. Basically the Federal Reserve pumps up artificial levels of demand in the economy, which lasts for a bit to generate growth numbers, but in the long term it simply results in inflation and a continually delayed (at least for now) reckoning where the artificial demand (i.e. the government's ability to borrow) cannot be further expanded, and something has to give. This down the road would be a monetary crisis involving the US dollar being knocked off its perch as the world's primary reserve currency, and the yields on Treasuries skyrocketing to the point that the government is either forced to behave or else print so much money to actually cover interest payments on the debt that the flood of money into the economy causes catastrophic inflation. But anyway, my point is that you're making a circular argument, because you're saying that the Fed doesn't interfere in or exert tremendous control over the economy, because there's something that we know shows the given price level of money in an economy called the ISLM curve, falsely implying that everything's fine with money because it's determined by mechanical, natural laws, almost like gravity, when in fact the Federal Reserve's whole purpose is to manipulate the inputs that go into that curve. It reduces interest rates which artificially increases income. It also increases the velocity of money, an input for the LM curve, by increasing nominal economic output, etc. etc. The IS and LM curves are not these things that just sort of happen on their own. This may come as a shock, but the US has a central bank which has as its sole purpose the manipulation of these curves. Its central mandate is control of price levels. Its unspoken mandate is to preserve the status of the big banks on the top of society, which is why the big banks created it in the first place, and why they own all the branches (this is the root fact behind why some people say that the Federal Reserve is in fact not federal and is instead privately owned, which isn't completely literally true, but true enough in the sense that it has a clear conflict of interest between the public good it's supposed to be upholding and the private interests of the banks that own its branches and exert control over the financial system, mainly through the New York branch). But that's not the whole story about the total money supply. There's also the pyramiding effect of the money multiplier. It's as if you're just pretending these things don't exist. It's real, I assure you. Banks create money out of thin air when they extend credit to you. To pay the obligation to them, you use the real money you in fact earned through your own labor, or from some real asset you might have. They get the better end of the deal, and almost all the money in the economy is spawned by this process, this insanely exorbitant privilege they have. And yes, I have a problem with it.\"", "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": "e400ac547517161dca92438aa601eba3", "text": "\"Thanks for the quick reply. I'd like to point out the post that triggered me to make this request in public is - Reddit post: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/ Specific response: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/c37kj2t The sidebar says that political debate is not permitted in this forum, and until recently I would say this request had been adhered to. But this particular FT article, like others, can be dissected politically, and therefore shouldn't be in r/finance. It belongs in r/economics. Unfortunately, any posts that relate to current macroeconomic circumstances, especially central banking and global unemployment, will invite the Ron-Paulites and they really don't add any sort of value to r/finance, and they do politicize the forum and debate. I don't think ZeroHedge _ever_ has a place in this forum. The source is not credible and always has too much of a political angle to be in a forum that has declared itself as \"\"not a place for politics.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
3a3f8fdc15582dcf9cf94cede744b992
Why doesn't Japan just divide the Yen by 100?
[ { "docid": "f61fb2ad491c1bd27a4e32e1570e69f4", "text": "I think the tradition within the country would outweigh any convenience it would have for the rest of the world. The US hasn't even been able to switch to the Metric system, even though it's taught in school and used in math / science. The costs involved with changing price tags, and re-organizing everything in their world would be pretty crazy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "382fded1ed4fb017436f171d9cfcd887", "text": "So their programmers don't have to deal with floating point arithmetic. This is why they're so far ahead in technology!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbf4a5de9f84ac8dfd484389fa250ed0", "text": "\"Currently, there is simply no reason to do so. It's not a problem. It is no more of a problem or effort to denote \"\"5,000\"\" than it is to denote \"\"50.00\"\". But if there were a reason to do so, it wouldn't be all that difficult. Of course there would be some minor complications because some people (mostly old people presumably) would take time getting used to it, but nothing that would stop a nation from doing so. In Iceland, this has happened on several occasions in the past and while Iceland is indeed a very small economy, it shouldn't be that difficult at all for a larger one. A country would need a grace period while the old currency is still valid, new editions of already circulating cash would need to be produced, and a coordinated time would need to be set, at which point financial institutions change their balances. Of course it would take some planning and coordination, but nothing close to for example unifying two or more currencies into one, like the did with the euro. The biggest side-effect there was an inflation shot when the currencies got changed in each country, but this can be done even with giant economies like Germany and France. Cutting off two zeros would be a cakewalk in comparison. But in case of currencies like the Japanese Yen, there is simply no reason to take off 2 zeros yet. Northern-Americans may find it strange that the numbers are so high, but that's merely a matter of what you're used to. There is no added complication in paying 5.000 vs. 50 at a restaurant, it merely takes more space on a computer screen and bill, and that's not a real problem. Besides, most of the time, even in N-America, the cents are listed as well, and that doesn't seem to be enough of a problem for people to concern themselves with. It's only when you get into hyper-inflation when the shear space required for denoting prices becomes a problem, that economies have a real reason to cut off zeros.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c51a854395de8874675428b50d28b0f", "text": "\"Think about moving the decimal point in a bunch of accounting software and price stickers. Think about getting confused, \"\"is that price in old yen or new yen?\"\" - not just immediately, but every time you hear a historical price figure. Think of the inconveniences. How many billions of yen would that cost the Japanese economy? It could be a lot. How many billions of yen would the Japanese economy save by enacting such a conversion? Because I doubt it's anywhere that much.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d62f5c863bcb09797da483525ae56141", "text": "Another possibly significant issue, is that the number ten thousand is very important in the Japanese language. In Japanese, you count in ones, tens, hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, BUT instead of a 'hundred thousand', you have ten ten thousands. and then one hundred ten thousands, and then a thousand ten thousands. The ten thousand yen note, equivalent roughly to the $100 bill, is the main base of Japanese currency. If you go to the bank, for example, you will almost always take out your money in ten thousand yen notes. Knowing a little about the language, i would say it would become quite strange and un-natural to suddenly start using a hundred as the main note value. I doubt the Japanese people would ever even consider that, and my guess is the only people who are even put out by the large number of zeroes are foreigners who are used to dealing in dollars and cents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef460d634d8c9cabb476c9eb30f28f93", "text": "A Yen is like a penny. Buy a chocolate bar 100¥ or £1.00. Should the UK get rid of pennies and only price things to the pound?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c35074b5fef92beb58a17ec96fd2450", "text": "What benefit vs. what cost? Benefit - none that I can think of. Cost - massive. Every system that handles money would need to re-value overnight, every store would need to re-price. In many ways it would be simpler and maybe even cheaper to introduce a new currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac7b2e3f5a1eb74257497cab899ae4b2", "text": "Some answers already informed about denomination. There are currencies, doing the cut off of two digits, for example the french franc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_franc#New_franc When you look to old french movies, they often talked about 'old franc' when talking about values (at least in French original, I don't know what happens in English translations).", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "b6b44c3e9f0f7b02c284a23f945e7de1", "text": "This is a extremely complicated subject, but I assume you want a very simple answer (otherwise I'm not qualified to answer). The value of most currencies is closely tied to the economy of the county, so if China were to print a huge amount of yuan, then since the value of their economy has not really changed, the international currency markets would devalue the yuan to compensate. (This is rather like, if have shares in, say Apple, and they were to issue an extra billion shares, then the value of your shares would fall (by half), rather than for Apple to be suddenly be worth twice as much) Print too many notes and your currency basically becomes almost worthless, which is what happened to the Zimbabwean dollar. I like the idea of China skipping crate loads of actual yuan or dollars notes to America, but in practice, the borrowing is just a paper exercise, rather like an IOU. As to whether America owes Yuan or dollars, the answer is whatever has been agreed. Assuming the currencies are fairly stable, then since each country has more control over their own currency, it is natural for them to prefer their own currency. However, if America believes the value of the dollar will increase, they may prefer to pay back in Yuan (costing them less dollars), and if China believes the value of the dollar will decrease they may agree to that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "825d7c04bb9ec16ea69490abaf54d078", "text": "Japan has not implemented the IBAN system (yet), at least according to the Wikipedia list. IBAN is a European thing, slowly spreading around the globe, and hasn't reached Japan and many other countries yet. SWIFT is your friend here. Adoption of the IBAN at various levels (as of January 1, 2014):", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7640decc4162cbf62a036df0c7c0f259", "text": "weird holdover from the bad old days when you had to do arithmetic by hand I would guess. Stocks used to trade in 1/8ths, so bonds trading in even smaller increments makes sense. Also (and I am unsure if this is still true) U.S. bonds trade on a 360 day year (or used to anyway) for the same reason... 360 divides well into months and quarters (for easier math) whereas 365 is considerably harder. Most of the world now trades in decimals and 365/365 years so I am unsure why the U.S. doesn't. Institutional inertia I would guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a93c451f46ad3d48c41ae4a06bbe3fc", "text": "\"Wikipedia has a nice list of currencies that use \"\"cents\"\" and currencies that use 1/100th division that is not called \"\"cent\"\". Cent means \"\"100\"\" in Latin (and French, and probably all the Roman family of languages), so if the currency is divided by 100 subunits - it will likely to be called \"\"cent\"\" or something similar in the local language. The list of currencies (on the same page) where it is not the case is significantly shorter, and includes countries with relatively ancient currency units that were invented before the introduction of the decimal system (even though now they are in fact decimal they still kept the old names, like the British \"\"pence\"\" or the Russian \"\"kopek\"\"). The point is that \"\"Dollar\"\" and \"\"cent\"\" are not directly related, many currencies that are not called \"\"Dollar\"\" are using cents as well (Euro, among others). It just means \"\"1/100th\"\", and it is safe to assume that most (if not all) of the modern currencies are divided into 1/100th.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96e19b1eecb7bdc0b59c5bc4571733ce", "text": "I guess other than tradition and inflation, probably because the merchants want them. In the US, what currently costs $2.00 used to cost $0.10. So 75 years ago, those individual cents made a pretty bid difference. Inflation causes prices to go up, but doesn't get us to just change our currencies patterns. In your example, you are assuming that in an average day, the rounding errors you are willing to accept happen a couple of times. 2 or 3 cents here and there mean nothing to you. However to the merchant, doing hundreds or thousands of transactions per day, those few cents up and down mean quite a bit in terms of profit. To an individual, looking at a time frame more than a single day (because who only participates in economies for a single day) there are potentially millions of transactions in a lifetime, mean potentially giving away millions of dollars because they didn't want to wait. And as for the comment that people working each 3 cents every 10 seconds, I would assume at least some of the time when they are waiting for rounding errors, they are not at work getting paid. That concept is assuming that somebody is always willing to pay them for their time regardless of where that person is in the world; I have no facts and wild assumptions, but surely that can't be true for even a majority of workers. Finally, you should be happy if you happy to have an income high enough that you don't care about individual cents. But there are those business people who see opportunity in folks like you and profit greatly from it. I personally worry very much about who has my money; gov't gets paid to the penny and I expect returns to the penny. A super polite service employee who smiled a lot serving me a beer is getting all the rounding errors I have.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e23c82ab6bb3ab7a9a80b14ade2e0cd", "text": "There's a concept called interest rate parity, which sort of says that you cannot profit on the difference in interest rates. This difference accounts for the predicted movement in exchange rates as well, along with the stability of the currencies.", "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": "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": "045a95698737bb16498d42194ede6411", "text": "I am just a C student with no hope for grad school, so you are going to have to walk me through this... The ECB (until recently), Japan, and the Swiss have been running QE programs equal to that of the Fed's in 2009 for the last couple of years. That's an extraordinary amount of money being created... what's more, is that the Swiss are even buying shitloads of American equities with it. Perhaps my understanding of M2 is flawed, but how would the Swiss national bank buying $63B in equities change M2? It's not like the fed is printing the money specifically for the transaction. The amount of QE being pumped into a healthy economy over the last couple years should be concerning, if only because it's unprecedented, especially since some of it is being directly invested into equities. I don't think there is a viable argument that can truthfully say that it isn't a pretty large variable in the market today.... but I could be wrong. Also, I've read enough, and heard enough, on how the inflation rate is measured to cultivate a healthy skepticism for the entire metric. The way they choose baskets, while obviously the best possible, is not something that lends itself to precision. Please be kind to my grammar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e784704c3b25e8a50f9d966eca4af8fc", "text": "The dollar is the reserve currency of choice because the full faith and credit of the US is big, liquid, and stable compared to any currently-available alternative. The Euro and Yuan are big enough to displace the dollar (and maybe the Yen), but any fears about the dollar being subject to fickle whims of politics and policy are significantly worse with those options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cd9ad3f0396c925bf17ac413d60c975", "text": "I think the government has no real monetary constraint at all. There's pretend constraints like an arbitrary debt ceiling, but not a real insurmountable constraint. There's not really a necessity to issue debt, the money could just be spent into the economy and no debt issuance conducted. Just run into negative equity. There's an inflation constraint in terms of how many real brains / hands / tractors are available, but it isnt 1:1 automatically. The talk of 'debt' is idealogical in my opinion. If Japan voids debt, it's not a problem. They seem to understand exactly how the financial system works and don't seem constrained politically to pulling the levers that deliver the best outcomes. They don't spend enough IMO, but at least they don't run around crowing about debt in a nonsensical way to score politically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acea26a0d0bd338543e2afb906e0c7f5", "text": "I recently bought a stock - which was priced exactly as your question ponders, to the 1/100 cent. I happened to buy 2000 shares, but just a round lot of 100 would be enough to create no need for rounding. It's common for industry to price this way as well, where an electronic component purchased by the thousands, is priced to the tenth or hundredth of a cent. There's nothing magic about this, and you'll have more to ponder when your own lowest unit of currency is no longer minted. (I see you are in UK. Here, in the US, there's talk of dropping our cent. A 5 cent piece to be the smallest value coin. Yet, any non-cash transactions, such as checks, credit card purchases, etc, will still price to the penny.) To specifically answer the question - it's called decimal currency. 1/10, 1/100 of a cent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c393b2a11daf7865f68881dbb8913a11", "text": "Wiring is the best way to move large amounts of money from one country to another. I am sure Japanese banks will allow you to exchange your Japanese Yen into USD and wire it to Canada. I am not sure if they will be able to convert directly from JPY to CND and wire funds in CND. If you can open a USD bank account in Canada, that might make things easier.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8d1a7ed650bccb30e84e1f254b57628", "text": "\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"", "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": "" } ]
fiqa
d4d0e5282c650ae01d56e15fcd6b8fbb
Is it sensible to keep savings in a foreign currency?
[ { "docid": "c22ddc6666d604975f4b2b01bdbd3979", "text": "Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not. Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts. You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5e0d911af62091f18a6573283d3b230", "text": "would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? This is primarily opinion based. Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup There is no way to predict what will happen in such large events. For example if one keeps funds outside on UK in say Germany in Euro's. The UK may bring in a regulation and clamp down all funds held outside of UK as belonging to Government or tax these at 90% or anything absurd that negates the purpose of keeping funds outside. There are example of developing / under developed economics putting absurd capital controls. Whether UK will do or not is a speculation. If you are going to spend your live in a country, it is best to invest in country. As normal diversification, you can look at keep a small amount invested outside of country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bce16a459992b5cfe97275296a8ea3e4", "text": "I don't think that it's a good idea to have cash savings in different currencies, unless you know which will be the direction of the wind for that currency. You can suffer a lot of volatility and losses if you just convert your savings to another currency without knowing anything about which direction that pair will take. Today we can see Brexit, but this is a fact that has been discounted by the market, so the currencies are already adjusted to that fact, but we don't know what will happen in the future, maybe Trump will collapse the US economy, or some other economies in Asia will raise to gain more leadership. If you want to invest in an economy, I think that it's a best idea to invest on companies that are working in that country. This is a way of moving your money to other currencies, and at least you can see how is the company performing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5be96ed7dcb380a9559e44f5d69c2bf", "text": "Is it sensible to keep savings in a foreign currency? The answer varies from one country to the next, but in the UK (or any other mature economy), I would advise against it. There are better ways to hedge against currency risks with the funds readily available to you through your ISA. You can keep your money relatively safe and liquid without ever paying a currency exchange fee.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "233fefaa0be88b6404682ad147c28974", "text": "If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53", "text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec199cf207762c464059adad4d27fd60", "text": "Withdraw your savings as cash and stuff them into your mattress? Less flippantly, would the fees for a safe deposit box at a bank big enough to hold CHF 250'000 be less than the negative interest rate that you'd be penalized with if you kept your money in a normal account?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df91c47eafc6397732ede7d8f2fe2602", "text": "\"You are mixing issues here. And it's tough for members to answer without more detail, the current mortgage rate in your country, for one. It's also interesting to parse out your question. \"\"I wish to safely invest money. Should I invest in real estate.\"\" But then the text offers that it's not an investment, it's a home to live in. This is where the trouble is. And it effectively creates 2 questions to address. The real question - Buy vs Rent. I know you mentioned Euros. Fortunately, mortgages aren't going to be too different, lower/higher, and tax consequence, but all can be adjusted. The New York Times offered a beautiful infographing calculator Is It Better to Rent or Buy? For those not interested in viewing it, they run the math, and the simple punchline is this - The home/rent ratio can have an incredibly wide range. I've read real estate blogs that say the rent should be 2% of the home value. That's a 4 to 1 home/rent (per year). A neighbor rented his higher end home, and the ratio was over 25 to 1. i.e. the rent for the year was about 4% the value of the home. It's this range that makes the choice less than obvious. The second part of your question is how to stay safely invested if you fear your own currency will collapse. That quickly morphs into too speculative a question. Some will quickly say \"\"gold\"\" and others would point out that a stockpile of weapons, ammo, and food would be the best choice to survive that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6eb756cc10517e78138928fe576fa8", "text": "\"Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means \"\"irregular deposit.\"\" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (\"\"give my money to a friend for safekeeping\"\") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (\"\"how can I keep my money safe\"\"). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is \"\"contract\"\". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for \"\"safekeeping,\"\" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss. Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily \"\"safe\"\" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the \"\"irregular\"\" part of the concept of \"\"irregular deposit\"\" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for \"\"safekeeping\"\" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and \"\"withdraw\"\" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier. And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides \"\"what you meant the money to be.\"\" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f321b5f5dcf5df983195cc9e9609e344", "text": "Firstly, I think you need to separate your question into two parts: If you are Chinese, live in China and intend to stay in China for most of your life then the default answer to question 1 should be Renminbi. Question 2 is not as important, you can hold USD in almost any country in the world. Any investment you hold has risk, which may include market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, inflation risk etc. Holding USD will expose you to exchange rate fluctuations as well. If the Renminbi rises in value against the dollar your returns in USD will be reduced by the same amount (remember that for currency fluctuations you have to multiply the percentages, see here for a good explanation). The first thing you probably want to do is find out exactly what the assets are in the 理财 you have invested in. The fact that there is a 'risk level' (even if it is only 2) would suggest to me that the fund is investing in some combination of bonds and stocks which means that your returns are not guaranteed and could make a loss. Interest rates on deposit accounts are mandated by the government in China, and the current 12 month deposit rate on RMB is 3%. To earn over 3%, GEB must be investing your assets in something else (I'm guessing bonds). Bear in mind that 1.5 years is a very short amount of time in investments, so don't assume this return will continue! I'm afraid I've only been studying Chinese for a year, so I can't really help you much with the link you've sent through - you may want to check if there is any guaranteed minimum return, which can be the case in more complex structured products. Ultimately you will need to pick an investment which you feel gives you the best combination of risk and return for your situation, there are a huge amount of options to choose between. The 4-5% you are earning right now is not a huge risk premium on the 3% you could earn in China from a time deposit, but in the current environment you may struggle to beat it without taking on more risk. Before considering that though - understand how much risk you already have with GEB.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59b7de70d9d48f378b7a777c2b5420ae", "text": "\"I would keep some money in the U.S. and some money in India. That way, in case \"\"something bad\"\" happens in one country, you will still have money in the other.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72b452624646db70ff1533aa27000710", "text": "I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81736205bbbb2bef19b6b96f71dcb2db", "text": "\"You might convert all your money in local currency but you need take care of following tips while studying abroad.Here are some money tips that can be useful during a trip abroad. Know about fees :- When you use a debit card or credit card in a foreign country, there are generally two types of transaction fees that may apply: Understand exchange rates :- The exchange rate lets you know the amount of nearby money you can get for each U.S. dollar, missing any expenses. There are \"\"sell\"\" rates for individuals who are trading U.S. dollars for foreign currency, and, the other way around, \"\"purchase\"\" rates. It's a smart thought to recognize what the neighborhood money is worth in dollars so you can comprehend the estimation of your buys abroad. Sites like X-Rates offer a currency converter that gives the current exchange rate, so you can make speedy comparisons. You can utilize it to get a feel for how much certain amount (say $1, $10, $25, $50, $100) are worth in local currency. Remember that rates fluctuate, so you will be unable to suspect precisely the amount of a buy made in a foreign currency will cost you in U.S. dollars. To get cash, check for buddy banks abroad:- If you already have an account with a large bank or credit union in the U.S., you may have an advantage. Being a client of a big financial institution with a large ATM system may make it easier to find a subsidiary cash machine and stay away from an out-of-system charge. Bank of America, for example, is a part of the Global ATM Alliance, which lets clients of taking an interest banks use their debit cards to withdraw money at any Alliance ATM without paying the machine's operator an access fee, in spite of the fact that you may at present be charged for converting dollars into local currency used for purchases. Citibank is another well known bank for travelers because it has 45,000 ATMs in more than 30 countries, including popular study-abroad destinations such as the U.K., Italy and Spain. ATMs in a foreign country may allow withdrawals just from a financial records, and not from savings so make sure to keep an adequate checking balance. Also, ATM withdrawal limits will apply just as they do in the U.S., but the amount may vary based on the local currency and exchange rates. Weigh the benefits of other banks :- For general needs, online banks and even foreign banks can also be good options. With online banks, you don’t have to visit physical branches, and these institutions typically have lower fees. Use our checking account tool to find one that’s a good fit. Foreign banks:- Many American debit cards may not work in Europe, Asia and Latin America, especially those that don’t have an EMV chip that help prevent fraud. Or some cards may work at one ATM, but not another. One option for students who expect a more extended stay in a foreign country is to open a new account at a local bank. This will let you have better access to ATMs, and to make purchases more easily and without as many fees. See our chart below for the names of the largest banks in several countries. Guard against fraud and identity theft:- One of the most important things you can do as you plan your trip is to let your bank know that you’ll be abroad. Include exact countries and dates, when possible, to avoid having your card flagged for fraud. Unfortunately, incidents may still arise despite providing ample warning to your bank. Bring a backup credit card or debit card so you can still access some sort of money in case one is canceled. Passports are also critical — not just for traveling from place to place, but also as identification to open a bank account and for everyday purposes. You’ll want to make two photocopies and give one to a friend or family member to keep at home and put the other in a separate, secure location, just in case your actual passport is lost or stolen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e92a5e3cfe7db5a782b9931710ff389d", "text": "\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aaf385e8e4cec04116c0701d991180b7", "text": "I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance. 3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "041245ddb1f9ce5576e6d63afde087e8", "text": "\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "332c7311f705acec1dd28a25e372bdce", "text": "I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0c5d572daf63971196fc6cffc133484", "text": "If your savings are in USD and will be making purchases using USD, then it will no longer go as far as it used to. I assume most Americans currently have their savings accounts in USD, so the value of those accounts will decrease. If you have investments in stocks or foreign currencies, your exposure may be less, but it depends. For example, stocks in companies that hold a lot of USD will also be hit hard, as will be currencies of nations that are still holding a lot of USD if the value of the USD is crashing. If you have a lot of debt measured in USD, while have a lot of assets that have nothing to do with USD, then you might make out like a bandit, since if you assume the value of the USD is falling, then it would become easier to sell off your other assets to pay off the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ee4ee6cbf862faced136bfe3156ba8", "text": "\"Hi I'm the writer thanks for the read and the comment. With the statement you quoted, I'm trying to dispute the claim that \"\"people these days can't afford a house because they would have to pay their entire salary just to afford the mortgage,\"\" which I think is quite common in some circles. The data makes no statement as to whether home ownership is more affordable or not, but simply shows that those buying property are using around the same percentage of their income to pay for it, which the data clearly shows to be true. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N As it turns out, home ownership levels have remained within ~5% of their 1980 levels based on percentage of the total population. I think there is an major classification flaw when comparing only sales because a great deal of people inherit property with no sale ever being made.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
807829a46107690d8a1c1ced48962284
What expenses do most people not prepare for that turn into “emergencies” but are not covered by an Emergency Fund?
[ { "docid": "0f07ea9fafa6a5e1b73d05b2c180926f", "text": "Here's a few. Is this what you're looking for? Also this should probably be a community wiki.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbe2c6e26e76716c03bd47bd0569e344", "text": "\"Some things are nearly universal, and have been mentioned already. My \"\"favorite\"\" forseeable expenses in this category are: However, I also advocate saving for expenses that are specific to you. Look back on your expenses for the last 12 months, minimum (18 or 24 may be better). Ask yourself these questions: I ask about large expenditures because you may make enough that you can \"\"eat\"\" these lapses in budgeting, as I did for many years. It is not an emergency now, but it turned into an emergency down the road as my spending went out of control. Look at all expenditures over a certain level, say $100 or $200. Some personal examples of expenses that aren't quite so universal, but turned into small emergencies: This last one was rather unexpected. It is the reason why I ask the question \"\"why didn't I budget for it?\"\" These fees and dues are for my professional-level certifications. In my industry, they are \"\"always\"\" paid for by the company. A year ago, they weren't paid by my former employer because they planned to lay me off. This year, they weren't paid by my present employer because I am technically a temporary worker (4 years is temporary?). So, from now on, I plan to save for this expense. If my employer pays my dues, then I stop saving for the expense, but keep the money I've saved.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7749ecf6124f78a622a98723b96f1a0b", "text": "\"Annual property tax and home insurance come to mind as things that are easily forgotten, but surely the biggest true, \"\"I didn't see that coming,\"\" is a major car repair. There are a number of things that can go wrong with a car with little warning and end up costing a thousand dollars or more. Since most people are dependent upon their car for getting to work, doing anything but fixing or replacing the car is not an option. If you fix it, that's an out of pocket expense that most aren't prepared for. If the car has some age, you might be inclined to replace it, but doing so in a rush costs a lot more than taking your time in such a decision.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83634132effd6fa98942c23cc8c36e2d", "text": "The way you ask this is interesting, it implies (quite correctly) that for many, an annual bill for house insurance, property tax, etc, can turn into an emergency. My answer to the true emergency is a breakage that can't be foreseen (although you have to know the furnace isn't going to last forever) or a medical bill that's not covered (our dental is limited and the Mrs root canal can be $1000 out of pocket)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c8a6c05c6d1e543cb0dedd72e683077", "text": "insurance premiums My annual car premium always caught me off guard until I set up a dedicated savings account for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "078cc3cc8852b7a1d203547ef846b2d9", "text": "Extended illness/disability that prevents you from being able to work. Edit: Leigh Riffel: So, why should this be expected, and how should it be planned for? Some of us may be fortunate enough that this never happens, but I've known enough unlucky people to have seen that it can and does happen. Prepare for it with:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e3180532398079ab7347abec6b8f857", "text": "While it is true that homeowners insurance will cover emergencies, it is very important to check and make sure that your policy is covering everything that it needs to. A great example is what happened to all of those without flood insurance in Tennessee last year. You may opt not to get additional coverage, but then you should make sure that you are setting aside funds for such a catastrophe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d82c8a19d273ab96095497d48042869", "text": "The most obvious one these days is unexpected and extended unemployment. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, you are asking for trouble in this economy.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "cda8732e8212e65f3d20e97eca5a2eac", "text": "First you should maintain a monthly expense and find out the burn rate. There would be certain expenses that are annual but mandatory [School fees, Insurance Premium, Property Taxes, etc]. So the ideal emergency fund depending on your industry should be 3 month to 6 months plus your mandatory yearly payments, more so if they come together. For example Most of my annual payments come out in May and I bank on the Bonus payout in April to cater to this spike in expense. So if I were to lose a job in March, my emergency funds would be sufficient for routine expenses, if i don't provision for additional funds Second you need to also figure out the reduced rate of monthly burn and ideally the emergency funds should be for 3 months of normal burn and 6 months of reduced burn.", "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": "3a2d0cb962219105b787335a74806013", "text": "\"Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as transportation or housing. The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be \"\"better off\"\" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07f8aff45a0dacdefd335463a736d6a4", "text": "I agree. Those people should have saved up money before they bought that car to get to work, before they went to school to learn how to do that job. And they definitely shouldn't have gotten hurt and went to the hospital. These people living [beyond there means] are clearly spending money on things they shouldn't thought to buy. /s", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4cedf44f71c72962014b2cb1989d870", "text": "This might vary from other answers but I generally prefer to use debt before touching an emergency fund. But one of the reasons I have an emergency fund is to that I can make sure I can cover any debt payments. Essentially, this give you leverage. You might start off with a small emergency such as needing a new refrigerator. If you pull the cash out of the fund to pay this off immediately, you've depleted your account and if something major comes along, you might be short. By using debt, you can often cover the costs with cash-flow and leave your risk buffer in place. Often, retailers will offer really sweet financing deals. 0% for 12 months or whatever. Often, though, if you don't pay it off in time, they can be costly. I'm not sure if this is legal (in the US) anymore but if it wasn't fully paid off in time, you'd be retroactively charged interest on the whole amount. But if you have an emergency fund, you pretty much guarantee that won't happen. The only time it will is if something else happens that requires the emergency fund to be cashed in. But if things are that dire, the debt is unsecured. You're credit may suffer but they can't come after your assets. It's not an either-or situation. You give yourself options by having the cash available. It allows you to take advantage of opportunities that might be too risky otherwise. Ultimately what you want to be able to weather the storm in a situation where you have, say, a mortgage on a house that is underwater, the stock market is down, and you have no income. In that situation, you don't want to liquidate your stock when it's down and you (probably) don't want to lose your home equity in a foreclosure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a3779a096b650123dcf697d0cb11ef3", "text": "Yes, it should be. As, where one has insurance, its an expense one would expect one to continue to incur in a normal budgetary emergency, even drop in the extreme.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc9beba134af860f63df40315c9b5caa", "text": "\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a555953991de6062f18e7d3f0931bd4d", "text": "Regarding Medical insurance premiums - The premiums are only part of the cost. You need to know if you have a deductible, your out of pocket maximum and what co-pays you have. If you take medications on a daily basis you need to account for those costs. Some programs allow you to put money aside pre-tax to pay for these known expenses. I would split Emergency fund / general savings into two lines. You can set a goal to save X months worth of expenses as an emergency fund, but the general savings will be whatever is left over from the rest of your budget. Unless you have a goal for the savings: car, home...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe39f604ea42df974c6c353a8578884f", "text": "I don't see why it would be any harder to sell stocks or bonds than it is to sell a CD you may have. Not to mention for large one time expenditures you can usually cover these with a credit card. This gives you about a month to move money around to pay your credit card off in a timely manner without incurring a charge. I have had no problem getting a credit limit beyond 4-5 months of expenses for myself on a single card. I can't even think of a household emergency that you can't pay for with a credit card. Job loss situations are not going to require large amounts of money immediately. True catastrophic emergencies (natural disasters, ransoms) however will need fast cash potentially. However in this case the only thing that is good is having cash on hand. As you can't count on ATMs or Bank systems to be functional. Even more serious emergencies such as zombies, the end of world, or anything that involves total economic collapse would require things that are not cash. You would need to invest in things like supplies, shelter, guns and maybe shiny metals that may have value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b3f1db667f6fef6484590e164986c9e", "text": "\"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest \"\"check cashing\"\", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or \"\"get ahead\"\", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d6f0faf2adfc80f6b2f81af07236421", "text": "The limits on an HSA are low enough that there's no real danger of overfunding it. The limits max out at (as of 2011, for an individual) at just over $3000 per year. Sometime in the next few years, you will have more than $3000 in health care expenses. It might be something like a car accident, acid reflux, a weird mole that the doctor wants to check out, a broken toe, a few nasty cavities that need to be filled, an expensive antibiotic, or something else entirely. Or, it might be something less dramatic, getting eaten away by copays and contact lenses. When that happens, you want the peace of mind that you can pay for your deductible plus any other expenses. Keep in mind that even a $5000 deductible can cost you more than $5000 out-of-pocket; either because of non-insured expenses, or simply an illness that straddles multiple calendar years. Besides, it's not like your HSA money is going anywhere; even if you never touch it, it's just a savings account that you can't touch until you turn 65. And if you do truly have an emergency, you can get at it if you have to. Even if your HSA is filled with several years' worth of deductibles, it's still a way to shield thousands of dollars a year from taxes, with luck moving them into lower-tax years 40 years from now. And it's a way that doesn't involve income limits or mandatory withdrawals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab01833e8f8774001c65b319b671cfb9", "text": "Pre tax insurance is not possible unless the emplyer provides hsa and do a payroll deduction. Obamacare is all post tax and you can do deduction if your expenses exceeds 10%of your income", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c256cc471cf2a1929507906a781f412f", "text": "\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ab3e118c60058987f14696f65d3471e", "text": "\"You don't mention what kind of insurance you're talking about, but I'll just address one angle on the question. For some kinds of insurance, such as health insurance (in the US), auto insurance, and homeowner's insurance, you may be insuring against an event that you would not be able to pay for without the insurance. For instance, if you are at fault in a car accident and injure someone, they could sue you for $100,000. A lot of people don't have $100,000. So it's not even a matter of \"\"I'll take the risk of having to pay it when the time comes\"\"; if the time comes, you could lose virtually everything you own and still have to pay more from future earnings. You're not just paying $X to offset a potential loss of $Y; you're paying $X to offset a potential derailment of your entire life. It is plausible that you could assign a reasonable monetary value to that potential \"\"cost\"\" that would mean you actually come out ahead in the insurance equation. It is with smaller expenses (such as insuring a new cellphone against breakage) that insurance becomes harder to justify. When the potential nonfinancial \"\"collateral damage\"\" of a bad event are less, you must justify the insurance expenses on the financial consequences only, which, as you say, is often difficult.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1433cfaddc0136852971c4afa4d49617", "text": "I would suggest that you use Emergency Funds for things that have a Low likelihood of happening but if they do happen can be devastating. I used to work as a financial advisor and the sugfestion we gave people is to have about 3 months worth of expenses in cash. This was primarily to cover things luke loss of work or some unforseen even that would prevent you from missing work for an extended period of time. Once you have your emergency fund saved do not touch it! Leave it where it is. Then tou can start working on a savings account for those items that are more likely to happen but dont have as much of a negative impact.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
b59862a9b8baaff6f728336e5e350211
Effect of Quantitative Easing on Price of Bonds
[ { "docid": "af9e3804fe0ba09f7a01b49f444fe670", "text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Low rates and QE were intended to help revive a stalled economy, but unfortunately, demand has not risen, but rather, the velocity of money has dropped like a rock. At some point, we will see the economy recover and the excess money in the system will need to be removed to avoid the inflation you suggest may occur. Of course, as rates rise to a more normal level, the price of all debt will adjust. This question may not be on topic for this board, but if we avoid politics, and keep it close to PF, it might remain.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5980ed493aedbecbc092add2c4be4dc", "text": "QE is artificial demand for bonds, but as always when there are more buyers than sellers the price of anything goes up. When QE ends the price of bonds will fall because everyone will know that the biggest buyer in the market is no longer there. So price of bonds will fall. And therefore the interest rate on new bonds must increase to match the total return available to buyers in the secondary market.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "f51352ee8542211f99b0f6241d0fffa5", "text": "\"Some people believe that inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply when the banks engage in fractional reserve lending. Is this correct? You are referring to the Austrian school of thought. The Austrians define inflation in terms of money supply. In other words, inflation is defined as an increase in the aggregate money supply, even if prices stay the same of fall. This is not the only definition of inflation. The mainstream defines inflation as a general increase in the prices of consumer goods. Based on the first definition, then your supposition is correct by definition. Based on the second definition, you can make a case that money supply affects prices. But keep in mind, it's just one factor affecting prices. Furthermore, economics is resistant to experimentation, so it is difficult to establish causality. Austrian economists tend to approach the problem of \"\"proof\"\" using a 2-pronged tactic: establish plausibility by explaining the mechanism, then look for historical evidence to back up that explanation. As I understand it, when there is more available money in the market, the price of goods will increase. But will a normal merchant acknowledge the increase of money supply and raise prices immediately? I posit that, in the short run, merchants won't increase prices in response to increased money supply. So, why does increased money supply lead to price inflation? The simple answer, in the Austrian school of thought, is that you have more money chasing the same amount of goods. In other words, printing money doesn't actually increase the number of widgets made. I believe the Austrian school is consistent with your supposition that prices don't increase in the short run. In other words, producers don't increase prices immediately after observing an increase in the money supply. Specifically, after the banks print more notes, where will the money be distributed first? The Austrian story goes as follows: Imagine that the first borrower is a home constructor, and he is borrowing freshly \"\"printed\"\" money to build new homes. This constructor will need to buy materials and hire labor to build homes, and in doing so he will bid against other home constructors. The increased demand for lumber, nails, tools, carpentry, etc. will ever so slightly increase the market prices for these goods and services. So the money goes first to the borrower, but then flows also to the people selling to the borrower, and the people selling to the sellers, etc. It has a ripple effect. Who will be the first one to have a need to rise their price? These producers won't need to increase their price, but they will choose to do so if the believe that demand outstrips supply. In other words if you have more orders than you can fill, then you may post higher prices because you think consumers will tolerate the higher price. You might object that competition deters any one producer from unilaterally raising prices, but in fact if all producers are failing to keep up with demand, then you can unilaterally raise prices because other producers don't have any excess inventory to undercut you with.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bc279563293599f6a7ccf87b98342bd", "text": "I came up with a real way. I saw once the market be so dumb as to allow this to work. Inflation rate = 2.5%. Home interest rate = 3%. Tax deduction = 1%. Money spent on inflation-adjusted I bonds (at the time these paid 0% net, that is 2.5% gross). Result, .5% profit after accounting for inflation. The kicker: Uncle Sam's I bonds are tax free. Sure it's not possible today, but the rates occasionally drop low enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96a2942dfa624446406a128889324e34", "text": "There's a premium or discount for various stocks subject to influence by the alternatives available to investors, meaning investments are susceptible to the principle of supply and demand. This is easily seen when industries or business models get hot, and everybody wants a tech company, a social media company, or a solar company in his portfolio. You'll see bubbles like the dotcom bubble, the RE bubble, etc., as people start to think that the industry and not its performance are all that matters. The stock price of a desired industry or company is inflated beyond what might otherwise be expected, to accommodate the premium that the investment can demand. So if bonds become uniformly less attractive in terms of returns, and certain institutional investors are largely obliged to continue purchasing them anyway, then flexible investors will need to look elsewhere. As more people want to buy stocks, the price rises. Supply and demand is sometimes so elementary it feels nearly counter-intuitive, but it applies here as elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b79d4842956bb4bda053d7609ac5bbc8", "text": "Despite QE, monetary expansion in the US has gone down for the last 10 years. I am not quite sure what you are asking. Yes banks have trillions at the Fed because of the central bank “money printing,” but none of that is leaking into the economy. Are you referring to central banks around the world purchasing US treasuries? Are you asking what assets are closely connected to treasuries that you can avoid?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7882c298cb26a09da949ad3a233ca7", "text": "\"Its definitely not a stupid question. The average American has absolutely no idea how this process works. I know this might be annoying, but I'm answering without 100% certainty. The Fed would increase the money supply by buying back government bonds. This increased demand for bonds would raise their price and therefore lower the interest return that they deliver. Since U.S. treasury bonds are considered to be the very safest possible investment, their rate is the \"\"risk free\"\" rate upon which all other rates are based. So if the government buys billions of these bonds, that much money ends up in the hands of whoever sold them. These sellers are the large financial organizations that hold all of our money (banks and large investment vehicles). Now, since bond rates are lower, they have an incentive to put that money somewhere else. It goes into stocks and investment in business ventures. I'm less certain about how this turns into inflation that consumers will recognize. The short answer is that there is only a finite number of goods and services for us to buy. If the amount of money increases and there are still the same number of goods and services, the prices will increase slightly. Your question about printing money to pay off debts is too complex for me to answer. I know that the inflation dynamic does play a role. It makes debts easier to pay off in the future than they seem right now. However, causing massive inflation to pay off debts brings a lot of other problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "448e3bbfec8eca4a4454abef042cc878", "text": "Why does the rising price of a bond pushes it's yield down? The bond price and its yield are linked; if one goes up, the other must go down. This is because the cash flows from the bond are fixed, predetermined. The market price of the bond fluctuates. Now what if people are suddenly willing to pay more for the same fixed payments? It must mean that the return, i.e. the yield, will be lower. Here we see that risk associated with the bonds in question has skyrocketed, and thus bonds' returns has skyrocketed, too. Am I right? The default risk has increased, yes. Now, I assume that bonds' price is determined by the market (issued by a state, traded at the market). Is that correct? Correct, as long as you are talking about the market price. Then who determines bonds' yields? I mean, isn't it fixed? Or - in the FT quote above - they are talking about the yields for the new bonds issued that particular month? The yield is not fixed - the cash flows are. Yield is the internal rate of return. See my answer above to your first question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26f32cc1e82922c4ef673358422fa5ae", "text": "Treasury bonds (of the same date and maturity) are completely fungible. One is exactly the same as the other. It doesn't matter who the Fed buys it from in the long term: there will be fewer outstanding Treasury bonds and more outstanding US dollars, and the price of a Treasury bond will be higher. If Goldman Sachs owns US treasury bonds, they will benefit from quantitative easing one way or another, simply because the value of those bonds goes up when the Fed is willing to buy them at a good price. In the short term, banks might do things with money (like make loans and perform other investment activity) a little faster than the Treasury. (The Treasury might skip or reduce the size of future bond sales.) There is also the opportunity for a tiny amount of arbitrage between the market price of a bond and the price the Fed is willing to pay, but everyone with a big chunk of bonds is able to compete for that little bit of profit (which is why these things are called open market operations) so it's not really all that hot. Really, people! There are far more legitimate criticisms of QE2 than Goldman Sachs participating in the treasury auction process! For starters, consider criticisms of the effects of the policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ddcd2bb7d01b9ae2744c9547cfa41c", "text": "\"The public doesn't really need to \"\"notice\"\" for inflation to take effect. Inflation happens there's more money relative to things to buy. Most people think that if say we increase the money supply by 2x, everything should get more expensive. But it matters \"\"where\"\" the increase in money supply is and to \"\"whom\"\" is receiving it. For example, the liquid money supply for US$ increased almost 4 times from 2009 to 2017 via quantitative easing, where the central bank purchased not just short term treasuries, but also longer term bonds. You would think that having 4x the amount of US$ circulating would lead to a lot of inflation on consumer prices. For every $1 that was floating around in 2009, we now have $4, so people should be willing to pay more for a given good, increasing its price. However, the \"\"new\"\" money has been primarily used to purchase assets, and drive up their prices. It has not really found its way to into worker pay (or to the general public), as median income for workers has stayed relatively flat in that time frame. So it can be argued that the \"\"asset\"\" markets are feeling the effects of \"\"inflation\"\" from the increased money supply. Where real estate prices, public stock prices, venture capital investments, etc. have all seen a large increase in their costs to acquire relative to the same asset and opportunity. These assets are acting like a \"\"sponge\"\" for the \"\"new money\"\" that prevents the effects of its inflationary properties from exiting out into the consumer economy. That is also why central banks across the globe are in a predicament in how to \"\"stop\"\" quantitative easing. If they were to shrink the money supply, the inflationary pressures on assets would go down because there's not enough new money to keep raising their prices. Doing it the wrong way would cause housing, stocks, and investment markets to stop growing, because there wouldn't be as much \"\"new money\"\" creating demand for those assets. The best way I can illustrate this is with an example: Say you have an economy that consists of an \"\"Orange Tree\"\" that produces 10 oranges per year. There are 10 people in this economy that each want 1 orange per year. And there is a circulating money supply of $10. The owner of the Orange Tree hires all 10 people to pick 1 orange for him, and pays them $1 to pick. In this scenario, each person picks 1 orange and gives it to the owner. They then receive $1. They then turn around and purchase one of the oranges from the owner of the tree. Because demand is 10 oranges, and supply is 10 oranges, and the money supply is $10, each orange is priced at $1 and everyone is happy. Now let's say the central bank \"\"prints\"\" $100 more dollars. If the central bank gave it to the \"\"people\"\" evenly, each person would end up with $11. Now we have 10 people that want 10 oranges and each have $11. So, the price for the oranges would \"\"inflate\"\" to $11 per orange. Now let's say instead of giving the extra $100 to the \"\"people,\"\" the central bank instead gives it to the \"\"orange tree owner.\"\" The owner can still pick his 10 oranges with the 10 people (the labor force), and can still charge $1 per orange. As long as oranges are still $1, he doesn't really need to increase the \"\"wages\"\" of the orange pickers. So, instead, he invests the $50 into building a bigger house for himself, and then puts the remaining $50 into developing an \"\"orange picking machine.\"\" The supply of oranges is the same, the demand for oranges is the same, and the supply of money that demands oranges is the same, so each orange will continue to be priced at $1. In this scenario, the supply of money increased by 10x, but the prices of oranges did not inflate. This is because the new money went into assets, not consumer demand. Now play this scenario forward a few years. The orange tree owner now has a machine that picks oranges, so he stops hiring people to pick oranges. Now he has a new house and all the oranges he can eat. Now let's say this economy was replicated 100 times, but here are only 20 houses. So there are 100 \"\"orange tree owners\"\" and 1,000 people that get paid to pick oranges and are willing to pay to consume oranges. The central bank hands $100 to each of the 100 orange tree owners. In this case, some of the Orange Tree owners will bid up the price of the houses from $50 to $100. The other Orange Tree Owners may invest in bigger and better \"\"Orange Tree Picking\"\" machines. That automation will lower the cost to pick oranges, and increase profits if prices stay the same. Eventually, those owners will be able to bid more than $100 for one of the 20 houses. As this plays out, the price of a house will continue to increase until all orange picking is automated, but no one can afford oranges because they are not needed to pick them anymore. This is a simplified version of what's basically happening on a global scale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "154d7f5c99eb49598a76e1db747b22f3", "text": "I'm not sure what point you think I was making. It looks like you think I'm supporting the idea that QE causes inflation, which it doesn't. At least not when it is being used as it has been. What it does seem to have done is depress interest rates and create a speculative market that doesn't match up with economic reality. It has also created a ridiculous profit loop for investment banks selling bonds to the Fed. You can't talk about QE without mentioning that banks are now incentivized to hold onto reserves because they can collect interest. So the banks screwed up, were heavily subsidized under the pretense of it being best for the taxpayer, and were then rewarded for sitting on all of that money. If I support any viewpoint it is this. The government agreed to give the banks a thin veneer of solvency by granting them enormous sums in a short period. Obviously if that much currency went straight into the market it would be a disaster, so it put a mechanism in place to reward them for holding onto it. All QE did was massively increase the debt burden of the government, which will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of taxes, fines, fewer benefits, worsening infrastructure, and more restrictions. QE may have not caused inflation, but it certainly didn't help the vast majority of Americans who will simply see their standard of living decline at a quicker pace. I'm sure this will get blamed on immigrants or something instead of the reality that our government is tacitly rewarding banks for not lending to individuals. Why would they? An individual might not pay them back, but the government always will by simply extracting more out of those very individuals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b61eb81f67a953cfb6e04afe443616a9", "text": "Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ef7f9e39be68ec99874aa10daa9f40", "text": "I am going to speak in general, as this has also been the case in europe. First of all QE is an increase of money supply but using non conventional measures(there might be exceptions) some examples of this measures are changing interest rates or TLTRO. As to why this hasnt transitioned into more inflation, which in the end has but years after, has been a question that people have asked a lot. One of the reasons for this is the transmission mechanism not working properly, which implies that despite the fact banks have received money, they havent been able to move it to the real economy hence not increasing prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c480cc34018d4f6ac8d9e295e42efa98", "text": "It is different this time. But I think the risk of asset prices rising is almost as equal as them falling. QE caused asset price inflation, but QE was only to calm/support the market. They're probably not going to stuff that QE money back into the central bank for a very long time either. Maybe, they'll just keep rolling over the bonds out to maturity, while relying on deficits to inflate away the assets at the Fed. https://youtu.be/o8LAUQwv77Q My bet is the main risks going forward are political risks, and continued modest inflation among things not measured by CPI.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ae6bb4df00454b020003c9348baf8aa", "text": "QE2 will mean that there are about $500 billion dollars in existence which weren't there before. These dollars will all be competing with the existing dollars for real goods and services, so each dollar will be worth a little less, and prices will rise a little. This is inflation. You can probably expect 1.5%-2% annual inflation for the US dollar over the next several years (the market certainly does in the aggregate, anyway). This is in terms of US-based goods and services. QE2 will also reduce the amount of other currencies you can get for the same dollar amount. The extent to which this will occur is less clear, in part because other currencies are also considering quantitative easing. Your long-term savings should probably not be in cash anyway, because of the low returns; this will probably affect you far more than the impact of quantitative easing. As for your savings which do remain in cash, what you should do with them depends on how you plan to dispose of them. The value of a currency is usually pretty stable in terms of the local economy's output of goods and services - it's the value in international trade which tends to fluctuate wildly. If you keep your savings in the same currency you plan to spend them in, they should be able to maintain their value decently well in the intermediate term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba635a0e2132b69b629c4d6de7a2b27b", "text": "Bond prices move inversely to their yields. So when you sell bonds and create a supply side deluge, bond prices will fall. Since bond prices are falling, yields go up. (The dollar amount that the bond pays out is the same. It's simply that since the bond price has fallen, that dollar amount paid out expressed in percentage terms of the bond price has risen).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47e265958b57cdfd56a88083c375e30f", "text": "As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal. Why you might consider it are for these reasons. You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34. Insurance is always on sale. Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage. Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage. Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies. Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more. Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup. Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34. Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start. It is not a panacea.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
b632c4c9c67fb1871cc96f30f14e6b6b
If gold's price implodes then what goes up?
[ { "docid": "a5fc1225abe1e6651a20b3d8eea0eab7", "text": "\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\"", "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": "0725fa86485e769dcd515cc6a01768ad", "text": "\"Nothing necessarily has to \"\"benefit.\"\" Right now, what primarily drives demand for gold is its perceived use as a hedge against the inflation of fiat currency. I.e. when inflation strikes, the price of gold goes up rapidly. Thus, for a given currency, gold decreasing in price is almost always a signal that the currency is increasing in value. However, it may be that at some point in time people everywhere just decide that gold is no longer worth using as an inflation hedge, and thus the price collapses simply because demand collapsed. No corresponding \"\"benefit\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "831c8f232d1346bee6ed25d4c736aa80", "text": "It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "9f0df3b976c5c95311470cb1c41604f2", "text": "They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58449f8023032c3e88340a3a6ff677d6", "text": "Redditors! Buy gold and demand that the financial institution who sold it deliver it. When they try to buy enough gold to cover their short the price will explode, free money. Disclaimer: you all have to do it or it won't work", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38aa011258eb268a60e1affa22392333", "text": "No. If you have to ignore a price spike, obviously its value is not constant. Gold is a commodity, just like every other commodity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18a4ec884d5992249a95fe141fdd1279", "text": "No. The value of the dollar will continue to decline, in turn adding to the value of gold. The current prices are not high for metals, although not rock bottom prices. Especially given what central banks are going to do. (QE). We are nowhere near a gold bubble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddb92aa59e5753bd3a789b295a63dca6", "text": "\"In my opinion, you're in a precious metals \"\"bubble\"\" when rising prices are driven by the people's desire the own the commodity without a reason other than \"\"the market is going up\"\". Usually \"\"bubble\"\" markets are fueled by lots of debt. IMO, this isn't a bubble. I don't think that silver and gold values are shooting up like a rocket due to some orgy of speculation. In my opinion, citizens are losing faith in the government and in the value of money itself. If you have money to save, most banks pay less than 1%. The government claims that inflation is nonexistant -- the inflation rate on a US Series I Savings Bond was 0.37% in November 2010. Yet most people are noticing escalations in price in things that dominate their budget -- fuel, healthcare, local taxes and food. I bought a pound of store-brand butter for $3.99 yesterday... that was $0.99 4-5 years ago. People are seeing precious metals as a way to hedge against that. They're rational about it -- trying to protect assets is different than speculation. I think the question to ask is: \"\"Is the US Dollar's value a bubble?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e8427f6c06c93827246c711c98b9cb6", "text": "\"I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option. I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons. **Example:** [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called \"\"The Economist\"\" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos) [Actual \"\"The Economist\"\" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos) (edit: formatting)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f", "text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9aabe7143c93b50c64bded075fdfaca7", "text": "Your question asks about the mechanism of money inflation - not price inflation. Money inflation occurs when new money is introduced into an economy. The value of money is subject to supply and demand like other items in the economy. The effects of new money can be difficult to predict. One of the results of additional money can be rising prices. These rising prices can be concentrated in one particular area - stocks, homes, food - or they can be spread out over many items. This is true regardless of the form of money being inflated - gold, silver, or paper money. There were times in history when large discoveries of gold and silver were found that caused prices to rise as a result. Of course, the large discoveries of gold and silver pale in comparison to the gigantic discoveries by central banks of new fiat currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e15fa69c9638052da5104cf68de929d", "text": "Approximately 5.3 billion ounces have been mined. This puts the total value of all gold in the world at about $9.5 trillion, based on $1800/oz. Total world net worth was $125T in 2006. There's an odd thing that happens when one asset's value is suddenly such a large percent of all assets. (This reminds me of how and why the tech bubble burst. Cisco and EMC would have been worth more than all other stocks combined if they grew in the 00's like they did in the 90's.) Production (in 2005/6) ran about 80 million oz/yr. Just over 1.5% impact to total supply, so you are right in that observation. On the other hand, the limited amount out here, means that if everyone decided to put their wealth in gold, it would be done by driving the price to bubblicious levels. One can study this all day, and parse out how much is in investment form (as compared to jewelry, etc) and realize that a few trillion dollars in value pales in comparison to the wealth of the US alone, let alone the world. Half the world can't buy two oz if they tried. Of course there's pressure to reopen mines that had costs pushing $800/oz. Understand that the supply of $300 gold is long gone. As the easy gold has been mined, and cost goes up, there's a point where mines close. But as the price of gold trades at these levels, the mines that couldn't produce at $600 are now opening.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "500707114934997f55ec17ae6020bf57", "text": "Gold isn't constant in value. If you look at the high price of $800 in January of 1980 and the low of $291 in 2001, you lost a lot of purchasing power, especially since money in 2001 was worth less than in 1980. People claim gold is a stable store of value but it isn't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6772c658a9ce2de9ba987109f7782764", "text": "\"Gold may have some \"\"intrinsic value\"\" but it cannot be accurately determined by investors by any known valuation techniques. In fact, if you were to apply the dividend discount model of John Burr Williams - a variation of which is the basis of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and the basis of most valuation techniques - gold would have zero intrinsic value because it produces no cash flow. Legendary focus investor Warren Buffett argues that investing in gold is pure speculation because of the reason mentioned above. As others have mentioned, gold prices are affected by supply and demand, but the bigger influence on the price of gold is how the economy is. Gold is seen as a store of value because, according to some, it does not \"\"lose value\"\" unlike paper currency during inflation. In inflationary times, demand increases so gold prices do go up, which is why gold behaves similar to a commodity but has far less uses. It is difficult to argue whether or not gold gains or loses value because we can't determine the intrinsic value of gold, and anyone who attempts to justify any given price is pulling blinders over your eyes. It is indisputable that, over history, gold represents wealth and that in the past century and the last decade, gold prices rise in inflationary conditions as people dump dollars for gold, and it has fallen when the purchasing power of currency increases. Many investors have talked about a \"\"gold bubble\"\" by arguing that gold prices are inflated because of inflation and the Fed's money policy and that once interest rates rise, the money supply will contract and gold will fall, but again, nobody can say with any reasonable accuracy what the fair value of gold at any given point is. This article on seeking alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/112794-the-intrinsic-value-of-gold gives a quick overview, but it is also vague because gold can't be accurately priced. I wouldn't say that gold has zero intrinsic value because gold is not a business so traditional models are inappropriate, but I would say that gold *certainly * doesn't have a value of $1,500 and it's propped so high only because of investor expectation. In conclusion, I do not believe you can accurately state whether gold is undervalued or overvalued - you must make judgments based on what you think about the future of the market and of monetary policy, but there are too many variables to be accurate consistently.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9620cb243a43bef92f19b69725a8d89", "text": "\"Bitcoin will never come back down; it's a *limited commodity* that is tradable like a currency. Since it's a commodity, it will always have value and since it's a limited commodity, that value will always go up. Disclaimer: by \"\"come back down\"\" I meant back down to the $3 a coin it was at when it hit it's first spike *without* being obsoleted. Not the current $5000 shenanigans; this is just part of it's market cycle.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd4f3e7ca6ee85d18d460aeb65be06f4", "text": "If the US economy crashes at all suddenly, the global economy goes with it. In that case, yes, the postapocalyptic scenarios may be the best answer. But that's got so low a probability of happening that you'd be a fool to invest in it. If you really feel the need, consider investing in the companies which supply those activities. The big winners in the California gold rush were the general stores that sold supplies to the speculators.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50b52264b9409f57b1b597876e96528a", "text": "Technically, you could improve your odds in this hypothetical pre-apocolyptic economy by diversifying your digital and tangible precious-metal-commodity portfolio by going in with gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and others. That being said I'm not sure if one can access tangible stores of all these metals...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed2c6d6b02ce66f39164f5b8fba20730", "text": "Somebody will have to file all the required paperwork and fees with the local government, state government and even the federal government. This paperwork is used by these governments to record who owns the property and how it is owned. Prior to the settlement date they also will need to verify how the property is described and owned so that you are sure that you are being sold the exact property you expect, and that it is delivered to you free and clear of all other debts. If this is done wrong you might discover years later that you paid money for something that you don't really own. In some jurisdictions this has to be done via a law office, in others there is no requirement for a lawyer. Because a mortgage company, bank, or credit union is giving you money for the loan, they may require you to use a settlement attorney. They don't want to discover in 5 years that a simple mistake will cost them hundreds of thousands to fix. The mortgage company is required to give you a more detailed estimate of all the closing costs before you are committed to the loan. The quoted paragraph is not good enough. Even if you can avoid the use of a lawyer these functions still need to be done by somebody, and that will still cost money.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
e2f25e26fd4636bef93a6f1365c7f2be
Mortgage sold to yet another servicer. What are my options?
[ { "docid": "c656406e5832542d6366718a515013fa", "text": "Are my mortgage terms locked in? Who oversees this? Yes your terms like rate, balance, penalties, due dates, are all covered in the mortgage documents. Those will not change. If the mortgage is an adjustable or has a balloon payment those terms will be followed by the new company. That being said, mistakes can be made. Double check everything. I had a transfer get messed up once, and all the terms were wrong. It took a few months but everything was worked out. In fact because they first tried to stonewall me I was able to negotiate some additional concessions out of them. Running your own escrow account is one thing you always want to do. That makes sure that the taxes and insurance are always paid by you, even if the servicing company has a glitch. Generally you have to have enough equity to not have PMI in order to get them to agree to the self-escrow option. If you have a problem with the servicing company then contact the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau a part of the US Government. They have only been a round a few years, thus I have no experience with them. Have an issue with a financial product or service? We'll forward your complaint to the company and work to get a response from them. The last few times I applied for a mortgage or refinanced a mortgage the lender had to reveal as part of the application stage the percentage of recent mortgages they still own/service. Check those numbers the next time you apply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcd3f1bfd91b3e4ba23288497bd15f5b", "text": "\"Your mortgage terms are locked in; the servicer/new owner cannot change the terms without your consent, but the servicer can be more aggressive in taking action (as specified in your mortgage contract) against you. For example, if the mortgage agreement calls for penalties for missing a payment or making it late, your friendly neighborhood banker might waive the penalty if the payment is received a day late once (but perhaps not the second or the third time), but the servicer doesn't know you personally and does not care; you are hit with the penalty right away. If the payment was received a day late because of delays in the post office, too bad. If you used a bank bill payment service that \"\"guarantees\"\" on-time arrival, talk to the bank. All perfectly legal, and what you agreed to when you signed the contract. If you can set up electronic payments of your mortgage payments, you can avoid many of these hassles. If you are sending in more money than what is due each month, you should make sure that the extra money reduces the principal amount owed; easy enough if you are sending a physical check with a coupon that has an entry line for \"\"Extra payment applied to principal\"\" on it. But, the best mortgage contracts (from the bank's point of view) are those that say that extra money sent in applies to future monthly installments. That is, if you send in more than the monthly payment one month, you can send in a reduced payment next month; the bank will gladly hold the extra amount sent in this month and apply it towards next month's payment. So, read your mortgage document (I know, I know, the fine print is incomprehensible) to see how extra money is applied. Finally, re-financing your mortgage because you don't like the servicer is a losing proposition unless you can, somehow, ensure that your new bank will not sell your new mortgage to the same servicer or someone even worse.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642b2e4f9c3ead1b07d1a182c3669717", "text": "You would need to check the original mortgage papers you signed with the originators. Chances are you agreed to allow the mortgage to be sold and serviced by other parties. Refinancing would also put you in the same boat unless you got them to take that clause out of the mortgage/refinance papers. Also, chances are most small banks and originators simply can not keep mortgages on their books. There are also third parties that service loans too that do not actually own the mortgages as well. This is another party that could be involved out of many in your mortgage. I would also not worry about 127/139 complaints out of 1,100,000 loans. Most probably were underwater on their mortgage but I am sure a few are legitimate complaints. Banks make mistakes (I know right!). Anyway, good luck and let me know if you find out anything different.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "91284308cba499b85643f7b82623a40f", "text": "Underwriting manager here. It's not a big deal. Call your processor or loan officer tomorrow to make sure it's been cleared. My guess is that the underwriter or loan officer noted the discrepancy and corrected it in their systems. You'll have to sign a updated 1003 and 4506T at closing with correct info. In other words...no biggie, no worries. Not a show stopper at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ee6c73b0deba35ce0e6b077e959d1b4", "text": "That sucks. If BofA is taking responsibility for the insurance payment, then they should..., well, take responsibilty - full responsibility. I hope these people get reimbursed fairly. Didn't their insurance company contact them about the policy? If not, I'd certainly be shopping for a new insurance company, and possibly I'd include them in a lawsuit. The insurance company should be contacting the bank **and** their customer. Mine sent me a couple of letters, saying a copy was sent to the bank (although I think they still had the original bank, not BofA). But BofA had recently paid the premium, so they ignored it - basically dropped the ball. When I got the 2nd letter from the insurance company, I called again, and the guy at BofA got right on the ball, checked it out, and fixed it very quickly, then helped me cancel my escrow so I could handle it directly in the future. Perhaps I was lucky to get someone who cared about their job enough to follow through. But I also jumped in to make sure it got taken care of, so if he hadn't, I would have been bothering them until they did.", "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": "8d8e0ea294d9717ae772681b2fc45021", "text": "I'm sorry, but who pressured the appraiser to overstate the value of the house by threatening him with a loss of future business? I'm pretty sure I hired him but the lender threatened him. After I only had one house for him to do. You're missing the bigger picture", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e0f5a5bd8fcf16434ed72e82e14daf0", "text": "Consider that the bank of course makes money on the money in your escrow. It is nothing but a free loan you give the bank, and the official reasons why they want it are mostly BS - they want your free loan, nothing else. As a consequence, to let you out of it, they want the money they now cannot make on your money upfront, in form of a 'fee'. That explains the amount; it is right their expected loss by letting you out. Unfortunately, knowing this doesn't change your options. Either way, you will have to pay that money; either as a one-time fee, or as a continuing loss of interest. As others mentioned, you cannot calculate with 29 years, as chances are the mortgage will end earlier - by refinancing or sale. Then you are back to square one with another mandatory escrow; so paying the fee is probably not a good idea. If you are an interesting borrower for other banks, you might be able to refinance with no escrow; you can always try to negotiate this and make it a part of the contract. If they want your business, they might agree to that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "450c8ae1359a23cf337b1a1817dd9c03", "text": "What options do I have? Realistically? Get a regular full time job. Work at it for a year or so and then see about buying a house. That said, I recently purchased a decent home. I am self-employed and my income is highly erratic. Due to how my clients pay me, my business might go a couple months with absolutely no deposits. However, I've been at this for quite a few years. So, even though my business income is erratic, I pay myself regularly once a month. In order to close the deal with the mortgage company I had to provide 5 years worth of statements on my business AND my personal bank accounts. Also I had about a 30% down payment. This gave the bank enough info to realize that I could absolutely make the payments and we closed the deal. I'd say that if you have little to no actual financial history, don't have a solid personal income and don't have much of a down payment then you probably have no business buying a house at this point. The first time something goes wrong (water heater, ac, etc) you'll be in a world of trouble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c71772824094fe9bf7f68024218d142", "text": "There are programs out there which will let you refinance even when underwater, under the Government's HARP program. You are overpaying by nearly $7,000 per year compared to a refinance to 4.5%. A classic example of how the bubble hurt people who overextended themselves a bit as housing shot up. The bank risks a $50K loss if you default or short sell this property. I'd go in and sit down with a branch manager and ask what they can do to recast the loan to a lower rate as you are ready, wiling and able to keep the house and make your payments. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c81c3ab693664ad7f518315e463bdc63", "text": "Will citizens advice be able to help me, or am I only going to get told to seek legal advice anyway? They are just advisory. i.e. help/guide people. They are not responsible for any outcome. What can I do as I'm not the person who's made payment or been paid, but I also don't want to cause the estate agent lots of work from my mistake, but legally no bank will talk to me anyway. You are right. You estate agent would have to follow-up with banks [which you have already done]. Will I have to seek legal action or the estate agent? Once you follow-up with the Banks and the Ombudsman, you should proceed to legal. Legally if it is a mistake on your part, the beneficiary is NOT entitled to the money and has to refund it. However establishing this takes a while and hence most of the times beneficiary does not pay back the money that is not rightfully his.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b11a00537c257f650ed6a54ae8d0c128", "text": "I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b97679e455babf6f40d25eba1bd3ad0c", "text": "The issuer of the service contract is making money. DO NOT buy these contracts. Self insure over your life time 40/60 years and you will save money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a5d9fd18704adeef6278900266fbf8d", "text": "\"The comments are getting too much, but to verify that you are not insane, you are being bullied. It sounds like this is a sub-prime loan, of which you are wisely trying to get out of. It also sounds like they are doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing so. For them you are a very profitable customer. This might take some legwork for you, but depending on how bad they are violating the law they might be willing to forgive the loan. What I am trying to say, it might be very worth your while! Your first step will be looking for any free resources at your disposal: Just be cautious as many \"\"credit representation\"\" type business are only offering loan consolidation. That is not what you need. Fight those bastards!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3131fea694d5ac842c532e951554e55", "text": "\"I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation. However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you. As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership. This seems to be the most fair resolution. If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me. If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you. If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down. Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, \"\"Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,\"\" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money. Stand firm. \"\"I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?\"\" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs. Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership. Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized. Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating. Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them. Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away. They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay. Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the \"\"walk away\"\" option. Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth. Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back. They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "393cfe7f63759aa40272e57c8141fe59", "text": "\"The long and short of it is, the mortgage company has a significant interest in the resale value of the home in the event of a default. Imagine a scenario where you say to yourselves that you're not going to repair the deck just yet (\"\"meh, we'll do that next summer\"\") and something happens that causes a default on the mortgage. The resale value of the home may be harmed by the deck, even though you're willing to live with it. That being the case, the mortgage company has every right to insist that you carry out the repairs in order to maintain the property in salable condition, so the essence of it is, you don't have much choice but to do the repairs. Keep in mind too that the insurance company paid for the roof and the deck to be repaired. If they were to learn that you now have no intention of using the money to repair the property, you could end up in legal hot water with them. After all, you did accept the check for repairs that you're now not carrying out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "148f0f976110c67e4db7052db46b5637", "text": "\"Without all the details it's hard to tell what options you may have, but none of them are good. When you cosign you are saying that, you believe the primary signer will make good on the loan, but that if he doesn't you will. You are 100% responsible for this debt. As such, there are some actions you can take. First, really try to stress to your friend, that they need to get you outta this loan. Urge them to re-finance with out you if they can. Next look for \"\"better\"\" ways of defaulting on the loan and take them. Depending on what the loan is for you could deed-in-lue or short sale. You may just have to admit default. If you work with the bank, and try not to drag out the process, you will likely end up in a better place down the line. Also of importance is ownership. If you pay the loan, do you get ownership of the thing the loan was secured against? Usually not, but working with an attorney and the bank, maybe. For example, if it's a car, can the \"\"friend\"\" sign over the car to you, then you sell it, and reduce your debt. Basically as a cosigner, you have some rights, but you have all the responsibilities. You need to talk to an attorney and possibly the bank, and see what your options are. At this point, if you think the friend is not that much of a friend anymore, it's time to make sure that any conversation you have with them is recorded in email, or on paper.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9eba7b4b42d5fbc2ded2082e426640d5", "text": "\"That is called \"\"substitution of collateral.\"\" And yes, it can be done, but only with consent of the lender. The \"\"best case\"\" for this kind of maneuver is if the second house is larger and more valuable than the first. Another possibility is that you have two mortgages on the first house and none on the second, and you want to move the second mortgage on the first house to the second one, effectively making it a \"\"first\"\" mortgage. In these instances, the lender has a clear incentive to allow a substitution of collateral, because the second one is actually better than the first one. The potential problem in your case, is if the second house were more expensive than the first house, you could not use the sale proceeds of the first house as to buy the second house without borrowing additional money. In that case, a possible solution would be to go back to the lender on your first house for a larger mortgage, with the proceeds of that mortgage being used to retire the earlier mortgage. Depending on your credit, payment record, etc. they might be willing to do this.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
7b7954e3afe477f5d1edf077bc586854
How does the price of oil influence the value of currency?
[ { "docid": "be5a343ff06889ca387adaed1aed3f15", "text": "From an investor's standpoint, if the value of crude oil increases, economies that are oil dependent become more favourable (oil companies will be more profitable). Therefore, investors will find that country's currency more attractive in the foreign exchange market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6f6b991db212603d74dbba5aac2305f", "text": "Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "bd8b84e461d61c7f379907a7ed788f9e", "text": "\"My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between 13% and 15%. Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican peso. Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments, the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency. For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35. The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)? The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, \"\"does the real value of my stock ownership go down\"\" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much \"\"it depends\"\" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this. The best answer is to say, \"\"Look at history and what happened\"\" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f5e8dda815a97019c151c8a937f3d1", "text": "\"Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD. Hedging it doesn't mean \"\"less speculative\"\". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53a33eed609d2c59d67a43cc281aea4f", "text": "There are various indexes on the stock market that track the currencies. Though it is different than Forex (probably less leverage), you may be able to get the effects you're looking for. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but looked some into FXE, to trade the Euro debt crisis. Here's an article on Forex, putting FXE down (obviously a biased view, but perhaps will give you a starting point for comparison, should you want to trade something specific, like the current euro/dollar situation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "373405496876cbac2dcdeaea58cecc4b", "text": "\"Anthony Russell - I agree with JohnFx. Petroleum is used in making many things such as asphalt, road oil, plastic, jet fuel, etc. It's also used in some forms of electricity generation, and some electric cars use gasoline as a backup form of energy, petrol is also used in electricity generation outside of cars. Source can be found here. But to answer your question of why shares of electric car companies are not always negatively related to one another deals with supply and demand. If investors feel positively about petroleum and petroleum related prospects, then they are going to buy or attempt to buy shares of \"\"X\"\" petrol company. This will cause the price of \"\"X\"\", petrol company to rise, ceteris paribus. Just because the price of petroleum is high doesn't mean investors are going to buy shares of an electric car company. Petrol prices could be high, but numerous electric car companies could be doing poorly, now, with that being said you could argue that sales of electric cars may go up when petrol prices are high, but there are numerous factors that come into play here. I think it would be a good idea to do some more research if you are planning on investing. Also, remember, after a company goes public they no longer set the price of the shares of their stock. The price of company \"\"X\"\" shares are determined by supply and demand, which is inherently determined by investors attitudes and expectations, ultimately defined by past company performance, expectations of future performance, earnings, etc.. It could be that when the market is doing well - it's a good sign of other macroeconomic variables (employment, GDP, incomes, etc) and all these factors power how often individuals travel, vacation, etc. It also has to deal with the economy of the country producing the oil, when you have OPEC countries selling petrol to the U.S. it is likely much cheaper per barrel than domestic produced and refined petrol because of the labor laws, etc. So a strong economy may be somewhat correlated with oil prices and a strong market, but it's not necessarily the case that strong oil prices drive the economy..I think this is a great research topic that cannot be answered in one post.. Check this article here. From here you can track down what research the Fed of Cleveland has done concerning this. My advice to you is to not believe everything your peers tell you, but to research everything your peers tell you. With just a few clicks you can figure out the legitimacy of many things to at least some degree.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ebda2a7bb0b077f8bc29ca0eb874729", "text": "Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f", "text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "942a3f398e3d98d215c135e3a7153627", "text": "\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08f30ae13d4446f5989046359125f7c2", "text": "One interpretation of the above is that Pound (alongside US Dollar, Euro and other major curriencies), which forms the Forex basket of countries has dropped to less than 10% weightage in case of China's Forex holding. Now the question is where did this money go, this money probably have gone into Forex market to buy Yuan against Pound/Dollar etc. to bolster or strengthen Yuan. The currency reserve management is the 'wealth' management part and the 'currency' management part is what is known as 'central bank intervention' to stabilize the currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f910dd25fe2c3ef06ed799d1f813b10", "text": "\"It's very hard to measure the worth of an abstract concept like money, particularly over long periods of time. In the modern era we have things like the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the United States, where the Bureau of Labor Statistics literally sends \"\"shoppers\"\" out to find prices of things and surveys people to find out what they buy. This results in a variety of \"\"indexes\"\" which variously get reported by media outlets as \"\"inflation\"\" (or \"\"deflation\"\" if the change in value goes the other way). There are also other measurements available like the MIT Billion Prices Project which attempt to make their own reading of the \"\"worth\"\" of currencies. Those kinds of things are about the only ways to measure a currency's change in \"\"value to itself\"\" because a currency is basically only worth what one can buy with it. While it isn't \"\"all the world's currencies combined\"\", there is a concept of the International Monetary Fund's \"\"Special Drawing Rights (SDR)\"\", which is a basket of five currencies used by world central banks to help \"\"back\"\" each other's currencies, and is (very) occasionally used as a unit of currency for international contracts. One might be able to compare the price of one currency to that of the SDR, or even to any other weighted average of world currencies that one wanted, but I don't think it's done nearly as often as comparing currencies to the basket of goods one can buy to find \"\"inflation\"\". Even though one might think what would be important to measure would be overall Money Supply Inflation, much more often people care more about measuring Price Inflation. (Occasionally people worry about Wage Inflation, but generally that's considered a result of high Price Inflation.) In order to try to keep this on topic as a \"\"personal finance\"\" thing rather than an \"\"economics\"\" thing, I guess the question is: Why do you want to know? If you have some assets in a particular currency, you probably care most about what you'll be able to buy with them in the future when you want or need to spend them. In that sense, it's inflation that you're likely caring about the most. If you're trying to figure out which currency to keep your assets in, it largely depends on what currency your future expenses are likely to be in, though I can imagine that one might want to move out of a particular currency if there's a lot of political instability that you're expecting to lead to high inflation in a currency for a time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa44f765e5a2f38704d6cc8e004c6e7c", "text": "Most of the gold prices at international markets are USD denominated. Hence the prices would be same in international markets where large players are buying and selling. However this does not mean that the prices to the individuals in local markets is same. The difference is due to multiple things like cost of physical delivery, warehousing, local taxation, conversion of Local currency to USD etc. So in essence the price of Gold is similar to price of Crude Oil. The price of Oil is more or less same on all the markets exchanges, though there is small difference this is because of the cost of delivery/shipment which is borne by the buyer. However the cost of Oil to retail individual varies from country to country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a563599240df32f6f33488f04190e1bb", "text": "Yes. When the currency of a country appreciates, it benefits some groups and disadvantages others. In particular, exporters suffer when a currency increases in value relative to other countries. In a country like the US, where exporters are small relative to the economy, this isn't a big deal. In germany, where exporters make up a big part of the economy, a currency increasing in value leads to large numbers of layoffs and other negative net effects to the economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc3847d8114169b949d9e465c019279a", "text": "That value differs between a starving man and a man who never fears lack of food. Let's take, instead, the value of your mother's affection. Were you to have to pay for that affection, for her hugs, they would lose value. Offering a price makes her affection worth LESS. Therefore value is not tied to currency, nor is value indelibly tied to Capitalism. Trading capital for your mother's affection negates the value of the affection.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9", "text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a857c7fd17b6e619da8d93a365390bd1", "text": "The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6affe05bdebd9125b9c8e5dc36920781", "text": "\"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). \"\"the timing is just different\"\" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
8c3aa436f69a09498114e411fa3367bf
Considering buying a house in town with few major employers (economic stability)
[ { "docid": "c0c5c193b74f257a8d808dd4ef685225", "text": "It seems pretty clear to me that one of two things will happen regarding your local housing market: Personally, I'd hold out until either 1 or 2 happens, and then buy. (Assuming you plan to stay in your town regardless.) If you wait you'll end up with either a stronger investment or a big discount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6950d92f340ffdb328d15afac8299aba", "text": "BLUF: Continue renting, and work toward financial independence, you can always buy later if your situation changes. Owning the house you live in can be a poor investment. It is totally dependent on the housing market where you live. Do the math. The rumors may have depressed the market to the point where the houses are cheaper to buy. When you do the estimate, don't forget any homeowners association fees and periodic replacement of the roof, HVAC system and fencing, and money for repairs of plumbing and electrical systems. Calculate all the replacements as cost over the average lifespan of each system. And the repairs as an average yearly cost. Additionally, consider that remodeling will be needful every 20 years or so. There are also intangibles between owning and renting that can tip the scales no matter what the numbers alone say. Ownership comes with significant opportunity and maintenance costs and is by definition not liquid, but provides stability. As long as you make your payments, and the government doesn't use imminent domain, you cannot be forced to move. Renting gives you freedom from paying for maintenance and repairs on the house and the freedom to move with only a lease to break.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "ff1b45edc4eca37b570b308f78dab670", "text": "\"The house that sells for $200,000 might rent for a range of monthly numbers. 3% would be $6000/yr or $500/mo. This is absurdly low, and favors renting, not buying. 9% is $1500/mo in which case buying the house to live in or rent out (as a landlord) is the better choice. At this level \"\"paying rent\"\" should be avoided. I'm simply explaining the author's view, not advocating it. A quote from the article - annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too high annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are reasonable Edit to respond to Chuck's comment - Mortgage rates for qualified applicants are pretty tight from low to high, the 30 year is about 4.4% and the 15, 3.45%. Of course, a number of factors might mean paying more, but this is the average rate. And it changes over time. But the rent and purchase price in a given area will be different. Very different based on location. See what you'd pay for 2000 sq feet in Manhattan vs a nice town in the Mid-West. One can imagine a 'heat' map, when an area might show an $800 rent on a house selling for $40,000 as a \"\"4.16\"\" (The home price divided by annual rent) and another area as a \"\"20\"\", where the $200K house might rent for $1667/mo. It's not homogeneous through the US. As I said, I'm not taking a position, just discussing how the author formulated his approach. The author makes some assertions that can be debatable, e.g. that low rates are a bad time to buy because they already pushed the price too high. In my opinion, the US has had the crash, but the rates are still low. Buying is a personal decision, and the own/rent ratios are only one tool to be added to a list of factors in making the decision. Of course the article, as written, does the math based on the rates at time of publication (4%/30years). And the ratio of income to mortgage one can afford is tied to the current rate. The $60K couple, at 4%, can afford just over a $260K mortgage, but at 6%, $208K, and 8%, $170K. The struggle isn't with the payment, but the downpayment. The analysis isn't too different for a purchase to invest. If the rent exceeds 1% of the home price, an investor should be able to turn a profit after expenses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95213e824822aad6bd798e86cb0ef1b6", "text": "Amazon was a terrible addition to town. They sprouted condo towers and congestion in South Lake Union, then shipped in interns and employees who live in dorms and eat in the company cafeteria during their two waking that they are not at work. These people don't even take transit. There is near zero benefit unless you're a landlord downtown and enjoy the increase in rents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4868ceb88a6bd253ef1d6e26028246ad", "text": "I'm confused why you think you need a $450k house. That seems extremely high in today's market except perhaps in certain major urban locations. If you're going to live in suburbia or a smaller town/city, you should be able to find a nice 3br house for well under $300k. Before you rule out buying a house, I'd spend some time researching the real estate listings in your area, foreclosures, properties owned by bankruptcy court, etc. - you might be surprised to find a great home for as low as $150-200k. Of course if you live in a place where what I'm saying is completely off-base, please disregard my answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0102625e19f34c53b32cd07f2edc0bfe", "text": "For me there are two issues. So, what to do? You have the basics of a very strong position coming together. A good salary in a good city. I'd be patient and work on consolidating my position for another year to 18 months (including building a rainy day fund) and look to buy then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e11ca85524b85f798be8af25214f87d", "text": "Over the last ten years you have reaped the benefits of a good financial decision. (Presumably your low mortgage has freed up money for other financial priorities.) There would be no harm in making a clean break by selling as is. On the other hand, the resale value would probably be rather low considering the condition and the neighborhood. I don't want to assume too much here, but if a potential buyer is interested in the house by virtue of not being able to afford a house in a better neighborhood or better condition, their finances and credit history may make it difficult for them to be approved for a mortgage. That would reduce the potential buyer pool and further reduce the sale price. If you can pull more in rent than the mortgage, you definitely have an opportunity to come ahead. Maybe window A/C units and a repaired chimney are enough if you're renting. Your rental income would pay for that in less than a year even while paying your mortgage for you. (Of course you don't want to become a sleazy slumlord either.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4f81a0e0901c815c3775b9638c257a6", "text": "The only real option (long-term) is for businesses to move to other areas and re-distribute the population, which would allow for cheaper areas/homes to become viable options. This has actually begun to happen really, not many people may be aware yet of what's occurring in Nevada today. Apple just joined Tesla and Switch in announcing billion dollar investments in Virginia City, Nevada. Google also made huge land purchases. The tech population has begun moving into cheaper areas already and many people will follow, to cheaper homes and lower costs of living. All people are to blame for this real estate situation, everyone is just looking out for themselves and they are all concentrating in specific areas - naturally costs will rise. Re-distributing the population geographically (businesses + wealth) will relieve this kind of stress happening in focused areas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3eff2d19c29b1c7d18c9fb810330fac4", "text": "\"Welcome to Money.SE, and thank you for your service. In general, buying a house is wise if (a) the overall cost of ownership is less than the ongoing cost to rent in the area, and (b) you plan to stay in that area for some time, usually 7+ years. The VA loan is a unique opportunity and I'd recommend you make the most of it. In my area, I've seen bank owned properties that had an \"\"owner occupied\"\" restriction. 3 family homes that were beautiful, and when the numbers were scrubbed, the owner would see enough rent on two units to pay the mortgage, taxes, and still have money for maintenance. Each situation is unique, but some \"\"too good to be true\"\" deals are still out there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "933d4d77ab71aaf0bdb5e1d198ab6f1b", "text": "When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis. Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries. Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting. But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices. I think this could be down. If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble. Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit. Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05fe48493991c5b36b90932e2b37f540", "text": "Some highly pessimistic things worth noting to go alongside all the stability and tax break upside that homes generally provide: Negative equity is no joke and basically the only thing that bankrupts the middle classes consistently en masse. The UK is at the end of a huge housing bull run where rents are extremely cheap relative to buying (often in the 1% range within the M25), Brexit is looming and interest rates could well sky rocket with inflation. Borrowing ~500k to buy a highly illiquid asset you might have to fire sale in case of emergency/job loss etc for 300k in a few years when lots of (relatively) cheap rental housing is available to rent risk free, could be argued to be a highly lopsided and dangerous bet vs the alternatives. Locking in 'preferential' mortgage rates can be a huge trap: low interest rates generally increase asset values. If/when they rise, assets fall in value as the demand shrinks, making you highly exposed to huge losses if you need to sell before it is paid off. In the case of housing this can be exceptionally vicious as the liquidity dramatically dries up during falls, meaning fire sales become much more severe than they are for more liquid assets like stock. Weirdly and unlike most products, people tend to buy the very best house they can get leverage for, rather than work out what they need/want and finding the best value equivalent. If a bank will lend you £20 a day to buy lunch, and you can just afford to pay it, do you hunt out the very best £20 lunch you can every day, or do you make some solid compromises so you can save money for other things etc? You seem to be hunting very close to the absolute peak amount you can spend on these numbers. Related to above, at that level of mortgage/salary you have very little margin for error if either of you lose jobs etc. Houses are much more expensive to maintain/trade than most people think. You spend ~2-5% every time you buy and sell, and you can easily spend 2-20k+ a year depending what happens just keeping the thing watertight, paid for, liveable and staying up. You need to factor this in and be pessimistic when you do. Most people don't factor in these costs to the apparent 'index' rise in house values and what they expect to sell for in x years. In reality no buy and hold investor can ever realise even close to the quoted house price returns as they are basically stocks you have to pay 5% each time you buy or sell and then 1-20% percent a year to own - they have to rise dramatically over time for you to even break even after all the costs. In general you should buy homes to make memories, not money, and to buy them at prices that don't cause you sleepless nights in case of disasters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "910af6955795603ab97b04e074e1c735", "text": "It is a decent time to purchase real estate despite dsquid's opinion. I feel dsquid is falling for the old economic psychology of what ever direction its going it will continuing in that direction, which is a bad mentality for any investing (up or down). This may not be the bottom, and there is some sign that another dip is coming with in a year or two. But if you purchase now, and focus on a few key factors you may end up on the upside of the swing. First and foremost location matters more then value of the property. When the pent up demand is eventually released (after we get employment moving in the right direction) you will see a land grab. The first and highest valued places are those with nice neighborhoods and good schools as the young families (economically unburdened) start making homes. Second pay attention to valuation in so much as your burden. This means consider taxes and mortgage and terms of mortgage (stay away from variable or balloon rates). When thing go up the interest rates will lead the way. In this time of uncertainty you should make sure you can cover your mortgage payment with ease. Put plenty down (20% being the recommended to avoid mortgage insurance and long term costs) and shoot low on price. If you're handy you may even consider buying something that needs minor work (outdated kitchen or the like). If you shoot lower then your limit, then you'll be comfortable even if things turn sour for you. Ultimately all this hinges on what you want to do with the property. Its a wise time to buy homes today where you will be able to rent them out tomorrow. But the important thing is aim in the middle instead of at your limit (450 is definitely your limit). Remember banks will always tell you that you're able to afford twice as much as you actually should. And keep in mind, no matter how new or nice the home, it will need work at some point and that costs. So you should have that in mind when you consider savings. Based on your information I wouldnt shoot higher then 250-300k. I have friends who make your salary in dividends plus two incomes and they are comfortable in their home at its 250 price. They are able to afford repairs and upgrade regularly and arent threatened by potential tax hikes (though they gripe of course). The one good piece of advice from dsquid IMHO is that you should be ready for the environment to change. Higher interests rates will weigh on your comfort as much as CPI and increased taxes will so plan for them to be much higher and you'll be ahead of the game.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c02bdf6aeb4bfdfa3d5984e2b27f6d83", "text": "If there are a lot of houses for sale, can you be sure that in a year or two you can sell yours? How long does the average house in that area stay on the market before it is sold? What percentage of houses never get sold? If it can't be sold due to the crowded market you will be forced to rent the house. The question for you then is how much rental income can you get? Compare the rental income to your monthly cost of owning, and managing the house. One benefit to buying a house in a market that is easy to rent a house would be if you are forced to move quickly, then you aren't stuck being 3 months into a 12 month lease. Keep in mind that markets can change rather dramatically in just a few years. Housing costs were flat for much of the 90's, then rocketed up in the first half of the last decade, and after a big drop, they are one a slow climb back up. But the actual path they are on depends on the part of the US you are in. The rule of thumb in the past was based on the fact that over a few years the price would rise enough overcome the closing costs on the two transactions. Unfortunately the slow growth in the 90's meant that many had to bring checks to closing because the equity gained wasn't enough to overcome the closing costs due to low down payment loans. The fast growth period meant that people got into exotic loans to maximize the potential income when prices were going up 10-20% a year. When prices dropped some found that they bought houses they couldn't afford, but couldn't sell to break even on the transaction. They were stuck and had to default on the mortgage. In fact I have never seen a time frame when the rule of thumb ever applied.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b214c21bfffcc07a9824cab573471df1", "text": "That is a decision you need to make, but some of the pros and cons you could consider to help your decision making include: Pros: If bought at the right time in the property cycle and in a good growth area, it can help you grow your net worth much quicker than having money in the bank earning near zero interest. You would be replacing rent payments with mortgage payments and if your mortage payments are less than your current rent you will have additional money to pay for any expenses on the property and have a similar cashflow as you do now. You will be able to deduct your interest payments on the mortgage against your income if you are in the USA, thus reducing the tax you pay. You will have the security of your own house and not have to worry about moving if the landlord wants you out after your lease expires. Cons: If bought in a bad area and at the top of the property cycle you may never make any capital gains on the property and in fact may lose money on it long term. If the mortgage payments are more than your current rent you may be paying more especially at the start of your mortgage. If you buy a house you are generally stuck in one spot, it will be harder to move to different areas or states as it can cost a lot of money and time to sell and buy elsewhere, if renting you can generally just give notice and find a new place to rent. Property maintenance costs and taxes could be a drain on your finances, especially if the mortgage repayments are more than your current rent. If your mortgage payments and property expenses are way more than your current rent, it may reduce what you could be investing in other areas to help increase your net worth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ae3cb543558e6c150f706998416094c", "text": "You want to buy a house for $150,000. It may be possible to do this with $10,000 and a 3.5% downpayment, but it would be a lot better to have $40,000 and make a 20% downpayment. That would give you a cushion in case house prices fall, and there are often advantages to a 20% downpayment (lower rate; less mandatory insurance). You have an income of $35,000 and expenses of $23,000 (if you are careful with the money--what if you aren't?). You should have savings of either $17,500 or $11,500 in case of emergencies. Perhaps you simply weren't mentioning that. Note that you also need at least $137 * 26 = $3562 more to cover mortgage payments, so $15,062 by the expenses standard. This is in addition to the $40,000 for downpayment and closing costs. What do you plan to do if there is a problem with the new house, e.g. you need a new roof? Or smaller expenses like a new furnace or appliance? A plumbing problem? Damages from a storm? What if the tenants' teenage child has a party and trashes the place? What if your tenants stop paying rent but refuse to move out, trashing the place while being evicted? Your emergency savings need to be able to cover those situations. You checked comps (comparable properties). Great! But notice that you are looking at a one bathroom property for $150,000 and comparing to $180,000 houses. Consider that you may not get the $235 for that house, which is cheaper. Perhaps the rent for that house will only be $195 or less, because one bathroom doesn't really support three bedrooms of people. While real estate can be part of a portfolio, balance would suggest that much more of your portfolio be in things like stocks and bonds. What are you doing for retirement? Are you maxing out any tax-advantaged options that you have available? It might be better to do that before entering the real estate market. I am a 23 year old Australian man with a degree in computer science and a steady job from home working as a web developer. I'm a bit unclear on this. What makes the job steady? Is it employment with a large company? Are you self-employed with what has been a steady flow of customers? Regardless of which it is, consider the possibility of a recession. The company can lay you off (presumably you are at the bottom of the seniority). The new customers may be reluctant to start new projects while their cash flow is restrained. And your tenants may move out. At the same time. What will you do then? A mortgage is an obligation. You have to pay it regardless. While currently flush, are you the kind of flush that can weather a major setback? I would feel a lot better about an investment like this if you had $600,000 in savings and were using this as a complementary investment to broaden your portfolio. Even if you had $60,000 in savings and would still have substantial savings after the purchase. This feels more like you are trying to maximize your purchase. Money burning a hole in your pocket and trying to escape. It would be a lot safer to stick to securities. The worst that happens there is that you lose your investment (and it's more likely that the value will be reduced but recover). With mortgages, you can lose your entire investment and then some. Yes, the price may recover, but it may do so after the bank forecloses on the mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad8e946365b5d91b69c106948370a81c", "text": "There's a company called IdealSpot (I haven't used them, just heard of them) that will do that kind of analysis for you and suggest locations. Also, Census data is free and a good resource for demographic data when it comes to neighborhoods. Also, if you have a local SBDC they may have those numbers handy and they also can really walk you through the loan part of the process as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ec027c43f61f7abba959c4f54093321", "text": "Seems pretty stupid to buy when switching jobs every 2-4 years yields the greatest gains in salary. Why would you want to grow roots in an area for 15-30 years when you might be better off changing jobs/locales? Sure you don't have to keep your house that long but with all the extra costs and risks renting is a fine option for an upwardly mobile citizen.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
777d2eac607a416364e4662085d7025f
If banks offer a fixed rate lower than the variable rate, is that an indication interest rates may head down?
[ { "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": "bad7733c71b5c618301ebf612cd85e05", "text": "Usually that is the case that when fixed rates are lower than the variable rates, it is an indication that the banks feel the next movement in rates could be down. You also need to look at the fixed rates for different periods, for example 1 year fixed compared to 3 year fixed and 5 year fixed rates. If you find the 3 and 5 year fixed rates are higher than the 1 year fixed rates this could be an indication that the banks feel rates will fall in the short term but the falls won't last long and will continue to rise after a year or so. If the 3 year fixed rates are also low in comparison, then the banks may feel that the economy is heading for a longer term down trend. The banks won't want to lose out, so will change their fixed rates on their perception of where they feel the economy is headed. Since your post in May 2011, the standard variable rate has since dropped twice (in November and December) to be at 7.30%. You will also find that fixed rates have also been dropped further by the banks, indicating additional future cuts in the variable rates. Regards, Victor", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "b4e446ef6ed7ae3dba27349e0b3fede8", "text": "You're not crazy, but the banks are. Here's the problem: You're taking 100% LTV on property A - you won't be able to get a second mortgage for more than 80% total (including the current mortgage) LTV. That's actually something I just recently learned from my own experience. If the market is bad, the banks might even lower the LTV limit further. So essentially, at least 20% of your equity in A will remain on the paper. Banks don't like seeing the down-payment coming from anywhere other than your savings. Putting the downpayment from loan proceeds, even if not secured by the property which you're refinancing, will probably scare banks off. How to solve this? Suggest to deal with it as a business, putting both properties under a company/LLC, if possible. It might be hard to change the titles while you have loans on your properties, but even without it - deal with it as if it is a business. Approach your bank for a business loan - either secured by A or unsecured, and another investment loan for B. Describe your strategy to the banker (preferably a small community bank in the area where the properties are), and how you're going to fund the properties. You won't get rates as low as you have on A (3.25% on investment loan? Not a chance, that one is a keeper), but you might be able to get rid of the balloon/variable APR problem.", "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": "dc5d2f7ab87c363b8359dcfbff796599", "text": "The key word you are looking for is that you want to refinance the loan at a lower rate. Tell banks that and ask what they can offer you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "feb21810230b9f43fca6b46a596cab28", "text": "\"I am lucky enough to have chosen a flexible mortgage that allows me to change payment amounts at certain, very lenient intervals (to a minimum amount). So when I was laid off, the first thing I did was call my bank to lower my payments to a level that allowed me some breathing room, at my new, lower income. If and when my family's income increases, I'll re-adjust my payments to a higher amount. But if you're concerned about the \"\"what if\"\"s in this economy, I'd definitely choose a mortgage that allows for flexibility so that you don't lose your house if you don't have to, particularly if your situation is temporary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1065ee20942a2afea1ec71785bc1d8f", "text": "Makes sense so long as you can afford it while still maintaining at least six months living reserves. The sooner you own outright a decreasing asset the better which should be considered when selecting your loan term. However, with today's low rates and high performing stock market you may want to consider allowing that money to be put to better use. It all depends how risk adverse you are. That emotional aide of this decision and emotions have value, but only you can determine what that value is. So - generally speaking, the sooner you own an asset of decreasing value the better off you are, but in exceptionally low interest rate environments such as today there are, as mentioned, other things you may want to consider. Good luck and enjoy your new ride. Nothing better then some brand new wheels aye.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bd0f3fe069b9d41b6a0d7cbd12c89bf", "text": "I am currently in the process of purchasing a house. I am only putting 5% down. I see that some are saying that the traditional 20% down is the way to go. I am a first time homebuyer, and unfortunately we no longer live in the world where 20% down is mandatory, which is part of the reason why housing prices are so high. I feel it is more important that you are comfortable with what your monthly payments are as well as being informed on how interest rates can change how much you owe each month. Right now interest rates are pretty low, and it would almost be silly to put 20% down on your home. It might make more sense to put money in different vehicle right now, if you have extra, as the global economy will likely pick up and until it does, interest rates will likely stay low. Just my 2 cents worth. EDIT: I thought it would not be responsible of me not to mention that you should always have extra's saved for closing costs. They can be pricey, and if you are not informed of what they are, they can creep up on you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9ff7c27a27a446f5031e35247d5294", "text": "Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation. Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low. edit: typo", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a292093e9a0f0ce7871e0b2312b7f0f8", "text": "I've recently started studying a bit of finance (I am a software developer) and have a question regarding the Bank of England (BoE) announcement. The BoE agreed in maintaining its current interest rate (0.25% I think), although it announced it would be buying GILT (Government Bonds), wouldn't the purchase of bonds by a central bank make the interest rate move down? Isn't the goal of a central bank purchasing bonds, to move the interest rate? Is there a difference between adding liquidity to the market (increasing money supply) and changing the interest rate? Can these two things be separated? Thank you :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4ffb2830cbb0448b37aaf4292b04e29", "text": "\"Since I can't vote up the answer yet, I will agree with it here. I find the best tactic when you call is to tell them you have an offer in hand and will use it if they don't match the rate exactly or discount it enough to save you the trouble of going through the process of a balance transfer. So if they balk and say \"\"No,\"\" then walk and go (to the in hand offer). Just remember, the worst they can say is \"\"No.\"\" If you don't even bother to ask, it's as if you did and they said \"\"No,\"\" as either scenario leaves you with the same result: an unchanged interest rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3338ec3d0d5b89a5e26b1e9989b9d8b9", "text": "Interest rates are market driven. They tend to be based on the prime rate set by the federal reserve bank because of the tremendous lending capacity of that institution and that other loan originators will often fund their own lending (at least in part) with fed loans. However, there is no mandatory link between the federal reserve rate and the market rate. No law stipulates that rates cannot rise or fall. They will rise and fall as lenders see necessary to use their capital. Though a lender asking 10% interest might make no loans when others are willing to lend for 9%. The only protection you have is that we are (mostly) economically free. As a borrower, you are protected by the fact that there are many lenders. Likewise, as a lender, because there are many borrowers. Stability is simply by virtue of the fact that one market participant with inordinate pricing will find fewer counterparties to transact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c836582f2f36569871d4b8c5e68becd4", "text": "Some good and some bad here. The bad amounts to the fact that consumers are missing out on potential opportunity in the markets due to fear. Any financial advisor or analyst can tell you that there are a multitude of ways to enjoy the markets while limiting risk. You may not make a Million but, you will likely beat the savings account rate. On the good news front it is great that Americans continue to shed debt and are hesitant to take on more. Somewhere in the middle is the fact that some borrowers who may be able to qualify for lower rates can't get them due to depreciated home values. The bottom line there is that if you can afford your mortgage, be happy. You don't NEED to refinance for a lower rate, our grandparents never refinanced and they did ust fine.", "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": "584de925e50869048ed428309b9d453b", "text": "If economic conditions are weakening, i.e. unemployment rising, business and consummer confidence dropping, etc., you can expect interest rates and thus mortgage rates to drop. If economic conditions are strengthening you can expect interest rates and thus mortgage rates to start rising. As you are in the US, and with official interest rates there at 0.25% there is not much room for these rates to fall further. I am in Australia, with official interest rates at 3.75%, and with the economic weakness in the US and Europe and with China slowing down, we can expect our rates to fall further over the next year. Regarding your timeframe of one to two weeks, unless there is a decision on rates in the US in the next week I don't think there would be much change, especially with rates there at record lows. You are probably best to shop around for the best rates now and refinance once you have found one you are happy with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25907cc9e2791e40ad246d9032062ee2", "text": "Some loans have a variable interest rate which can protect the lender from inflation and the borrower from deflation. How much protection it offers depends on how closely the interest rate follows the inflation/deflation rate. Most variable rate loans have limits on how much and how frequently they can adjust. In your deflation scenario, the lender comes out ahead with a fixed rate loan already, since those future dollars are worth more than current dollars. The borrower doesn't owe more dollars, but the value of the dollars they owe is higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cabd6507f50414dfaa6ef94b564f4d3a", "text": "\"The reason to put more money down or accept a shorter maximum term is because the bank sweetens the deal (or fails to sour it in some fashion). For example, typically, if there is less than 20% down, you have to pay an premium called \"\"Private Mortgage Insurance\"\", which makes it bad deal. But I see banks offering the same rate for a 15%-year mortgage as for a 30-year one, and I think: fools and their money. Take the 30-year and, if you feel like it pay more every month. Although why you would feel like it, I don't know, since it's very difficult to get that money back if you need it.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
c3c2024773b9831212d510f724663b44
What will be the long term impact of the newly defined minimum exchange rate target from francs to euro?
[ { "docid": "5ed06b4b485a29dc989f8c087d98d527", "text": "The total size of the eurozone economy is $13 trillion, whereas Switzerland'd GDP is about $0.5 trillion, so the eurozone is about 26 times larger. As such, I would not expect this move to have a large effect on the eurozone economy. On the margins, this may decrease somewhat eurozone exports to Switzerland and increase imports from Switzerland, so this would be a slight negative for eurozone growth. Switzerland accounts for 5.2% of the EU's imports, and these imports will now be slightly cheaper, which puts some deflationary pressure on the EU, particularly in the Swiss-specialized industries of chemicals, medicinal products, machinery, instruments and time pieces. But overall, 5.2% is a rather small proportion. Bottom line, most common eurozone countries' people should probably not fret too much about this announcement. What it means for Switzerland and Swiss citizens, however, is a totally different (and much more interesting) question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7577e9124a4a8752111a7e91e5033a0", "text": "The idea behind this move is to avoid or mitigate long-term deflationary pressure and to boost the competitiveness of Swiss exporters. This is primarily a Swiss-based initiative that does not appear likely to have a major impact on the broader Eurozone. However, some pressure will be felt by other currencies as investors look to purchase - ie. this is not a great scenario for other countries wanting to keep their currencies weak. In terms of personal wealth - if you hold Swiss f then you are impacted. However, 1.2 is still very strong (most analysts cite 1.3 as more realistic) so there seems little need for a reaction of any kind at the personal level at this time, although diversity - as ever - is good. It should also be noted that changing the peg is a possibility, and that the 1.3 does seem to be the more realistic level. If you hold large amounts of Swiss f then this might cause you to look at your forex holdings. For the man in the street, probably not an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4d799f952082cf6768813a8df4b3127", "text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans.", "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": "5887589fd2f004e5ffadf2a922b01929", "text": "Im creating a 5-year projection on Profit and loss, cash flow and balance sheet and i\\m suppose to use the LIBOR (5 year forward curve) as interest rate on debt. This is the information i am given and it in USD. Thanks for the link. I guess its the USD LIBOR today, in one year, in two years, three years, four years and five years", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a829b0cd8b0cae7deedf77c992b58af3", "text": "It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.", "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": "3200217e7939b7c9eb0a82e4a1124feb", "text": "Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f", "text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "634ae536b1c98d917d05eebcab734301", "text": "Operation twist is just an asset swap. The balance sheet isn't being expanded, money isn't being printed to buy treasuries. The fed is just selling short term assets and buying longer term assets. If more longer term treasuries are bought this brings the yield down (for bonds the more you buy them, the lower the yield goes). Lower long term interest rates means people can borrow at low rates and this is supposed help the economy. No printing of money means that gold doesn't get more precious. I do think gold will do well though, if the ECB wants to save the EU they're going to have to print, and print a lot. The Bank of England is doing some QE too. Lots of countries will be/ are easing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b36b072e86700840072c0c1575631c", "text": "Well, you could just deposit the Euros in your French bank. In the US, you'll have to deal with foreign exchange services, unless you're talking large amounts for banks to want to handle (they'll handle small amounts too, of course, but not without a significant fee). Best thing I can think of is keeping them in a drawer with your passport. You'll use them on your next flight. Being French national, you're undoubtedly bound to visit the Euro zone again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d87984f8fd0b68c76fb7161190f20fd", "text": "\"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a \"\"new drachma\"\". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a49a74eb5a5c0016c80d3cba33b34eb", "text": "The real, short-term effect is that prices will go up a bit, have no effect on the amount of actual travel, and the government(s) that impose this tax will rake in more money to waste. This is what the governments actually want, but CO2 emissions is a good way to sell it. The long-term effect is that people will be just a bit more, on the margin, likely to avoid interacting with the European economy, which sucks for everyone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a3a4bfb1af5d188ee9d565c1c846036", "text": "\"There's an ideological/psychological aspect of this too apart from the practical problems. Eurozone leaders keep saying the mantra: conversion to the euro is \"\"irreversible\"\". There are analogies of this in recent history, it reminds me of the soviet leaders and their belief that communism is where history ends. They genuinely thought that once a communist system is built up in a country, it would stay forever. They believed in the superiority of their system, among other things this lead to the isolation of the Soviet Union from the West and the start of the Cold War. Then, in 1956 they were proven wrong with the Hungarian revolution and while they tried to \"\"clean up\"\" the situation as fast as they could and forget about it, their downhill inevitably started. Back to the present, you can easily see the importance of keeping Greece in the EZ. If Greece exits, the illusion of the irreversibility of the Euro is gone, and it would start to fall apart.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "381ec914798b6e7bd9ca5a71455574e1", "text": "Their biggest problem is that their main industry is shipping. Anything they could do to their currency wouldn't help the shipping industry at all. They can't even raise taxes, they aren't the only convenience flag in the world and ships are obviously very easy to move out. The only industry they have that could get any benefit from a devaluation would be tourism, but that would be mostly negated by moving out of the euro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78c84c5efcb07192d4a37d43f50b678c", "text": "I think the point is that m2 is 13.7 trillion usd, the Swiss investment is not even *half* a percent. The us equities marker valuation is larger at 22.5 trillion USD. Dumping an extra 100 bil usd is too little to do anything. Even dumping a trillion USD is a relatively small number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ea314b3dbeec651d17d4d45e178c4b9", "text": "Balanced out might be a better way to put it. Imports become cheaper, driving down inflation, which should permit companies to operate at a lower cost, which should eventually work to limit or eliminate the impact of the shift. These balancing factors generally occur in the long term and specific sectors of the economy will be impacted to different degrees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9584a6f6554b2d2367ec417532961f0", "text": "e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today. A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging. Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated).", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
530b8e94ff7638170151000d6f369072
How does the currency between countries relate
[ { "docid": "621eb1ca846df96ea2ee6dd9bf8c66d0", "text": "Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e445a0592214b800d5a666495d7d54d3", "text": "It's called correlation. I found this: http://www.forexrazor.com/en-us/school/tabid/426/ID/437424/currency-pair-correlations it looks a good place to start Similar types of political economies will correlate together, opposite types won't. Also there are geographic correlations (climate, language etc)", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "a784e06e0738e08af5368a14b5afae86", "text": "There's another dimension here as currency conversion isn't necessarily the final answer. As stated by others, converting money between the three should theoretically end up with the exact same value, less transactional costs. However the kink is that the price of most products are not updated as the currencies change. In many cases the price difference is such that even accounting for shipping and exchange fees, purchasing a product from a distributor in a foreign country can be cheaper than just picking it up at the local store. You might even be able to take advantage of this when purchasing at a single store. If that store is set up to accept multiple currencies then it's a matter of looking at the conversion rates the moment you are buying and deciding which one is the cheapest route for you. Of course, this generally will not work for smaller purchases like a cup of coffee or a meal. Primarily because the fee for the exchange might eclipse any savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e695a5a44676fed9b45586d7c613fde", "text": "\"Yes, but it depends on WHICH other currencies the country's money is depreciating against, and to what extent. This is why China \"\"pegging\"\" the renminbi/yuan to the dollar is an issue, it means Chinese goods do NOT become more expensive in the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1138e355b81a7a8ac2647aa46a98c76", "text": "It is interesting to consider the Netherlands which is part of the Euro zone. Germany uses 1 and 2 cent coins. Adjacent is the Netherlands where items remain priced to the cent but cash totals are rounded to the nearest 5c so 1 and 2c coins are out of circulation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9436fc2ca722cf39549c45710f53c2c0", "text": "It's slightly more complicated than that. Usually a country that was in Greece's situation would be able to use inflation to devalue their currency which would have the effect of lowering the value of the government's debts and also of making Greek prices more competitive in the international market. Or they could use quantitative easing to inject cheap cash into the economy to help stimulate it. Because Greece is on the Euro, however, they have no control over their own currency and their options are highly limited. Additionally, when you join the EU, especially the Eurozone, that's supposed to come with additional internal responsibilities, but it's also supposed to come with additional external ones as well. Greece has a responsibility to get its shit together, but the whole point is that more financially stable countries have a responsibility to help them. Right now that means Germany; they're the ones with the greatest control over the Euro and they're shying away from their duties. If the rest of Europe didn't want to risk ending up in this position they shouldn't have let Greece into the Eurozone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33688c0a4dd603830a854a65e4b90871", "text": "\"I think you missed the first two paragraphs of the article. It's raising the prices in some countries in Europe due to local tax increases, and in addition to that it's changing the currencies used in the countries you listed. The only thing about the title that may be considered \"\"misleading\"\" is the use of \"\"across the word\"\" instead of \"\"across Europe\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9502308b68e5cffb5c3f0fbd260caeb6", "text": "Chinese suppliers can quote their price in CNY rather than USD (as has been typical), and thus avoid the exchange risk from US dollar volatility- the CNY has been generally appreciating so committing to receive payments in US dollars when their costs are in CNY means they are typically on the losing end of the equation and they have to pad their prices a bit. Canadian importers will have to buy RMB (typically with CAD) to pay for their orders and Canadian exporters can take payment in RMB if they wish, or set prices in CAD. By avoiding the US dollar middleman the transactions are made less risky and incur less costs. Japan did this many decades ago (they, too, used to price their products in USD). This is important in transactions of large amounts, not so much for the tiny amounts associated with tourism. Two-way annual trade between China and Canada is in excess of $70bn. Of course Forex trading may greatly exceed the actual amounts required for trade- the world Forex market is at least an order of magnitude greater than size of real international trade. All that trading in currency and financial instruments means more jobs on Bay Street and more money flowing into a very vital part of the Canadian economy. Recent article from the (liberal) Toronto Star here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "143c8924071160f71f9e1bd71c72159c", "text": "Two parties will agree to pay each other's interest obligations. This is generally for one of two reasons: * One party wishes to swap a fixed interest rate (eg coupons on a bond) for a floating interest rate (eg: payments on a loan). If their counterparty wishes the opposite, and the rates are acceptable to both, they will agree to swap their obligations * There are two firms, based in countries A and B. Each firm has a branch in the other's country, and these branches each have a loan, denominated in that other countries currency. To reduce each firm's exposure to FX risk, they can swap their obligations, so A will pay interest on B's loan (which is in A's currency) and B on A's loan (which is in B's currency). edit: removed infuriating unterminated bracket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c760adde250dd20b09e0e032b5bdd9d6", "text": "When you buy a currency via FX market, really you are just exchanging one country's currency for another. So if it is permitted to hold one currency electronically, surely it must be permitted to hold a different country's currency electronically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbf4a5de9f84ac8dfd484389fa250ed0", "text": "\"Currently, there is simply no reason to do so. It's not a problem. It is no more of a problem or effort to denote \"\"5,000\"\" than it is to denote \"\"50.00\"\". But if there were a reason to do so, it wouldn't be all that difficult. Of course there would be some minor complications because some people (mostly old people presumably) would take time getting used to it, but nothing that would stop a nation from doing so. In Iceland, this has happened on several occasions in the past and while Iceland is indeed a very small economy, it shouldn't be that difficult at all for a larger one. A country would need a grace period while the old currency is still valid, new editions of already circulating cash would need to be produced, and a coordinated time would need to be set, at which point financial institutions change their balances. Of course it would take some planning and coordination, but nothing close to for example unifying two or more currencies into one, like the did with the euro. The biggest side-effect there was an inflation shot when the currencies got changed in each country, but this can be done even with giant economies like Germany and France. Cutting off two zeros would be a cakewalk in comparison. But in case of currencies like the Japanese Yen, there is simply no reason to take off 2 zeros yet. Northern-Americans may find it strange that the numbers are so high, but that's merely a matter of what you're used to. There is no added complication in paying 5.000 vs. 50 at a restaurant, it merely takes more space on a computer screen and bill, and that's not a real problem. Besides, most of the time, even in N-America, the cents are listed as well, and that doesn't seem to be enough of a problem for people to concern themselves with. It's only when you get into hyper-inflation when the shear space required for denoting prices becomes a problem, that economies have a real reason to cut off zeros.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b599fa547d14e731b3f8685f44242823", "text": "of course the value will be non zero however it would be very small, as all the countries would not leave at once... if its a piig holding the bag it would fall precipitously, if its a AAA (non france) it would go to 1.5 Its very path dependent on whom leaves when", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c49716a0538758168f596a785f54f5f0", "text": "From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3207224e410452dea55c68e15e4aaf4", "text": "Whether it's historically stronger or weaker isn't going to have an impact on you; the forex exposure you have is going forward if the exchange rates change you will have missed out on having more or less value by leaving it in a certain currency. (Ignoring fees) Say you exchange €85 for $100, if while you're in the US the Euro gets stronger than it currently is, and the exchange rate changes to €8:$10; then you will lose out on €5 if you try to change it back, and the opposite is true if the euro gets weaker than it currently is you would gain money on exchanging it back. Just look at it as though you're buying dollars like it were a commodity. If the euro gets stronger it buys more dollars and you should've held onto it in euros, if it gets weaker it buys less dollars and you were better off having it in dollars. You would want to use whichever currency you think will be weaker or gain the least against the dollar while you're here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24cf4e2fb2e9b789ee644ad9cc13f632", "text": "What you want is the average change in rate of the Australian Dollar against multiple other currencies, to even out the effect of moves in a single other currency. People often look at the trade-weighted exchange rate to get an idea of this, as it allows you to look at the currencies that are most relevant, rather than every tiny other currency having an equal weight.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be5a343ff06889ca387adaed1aed3f15", "text": "From an investor's standpoint, if the value of crude oil increases, economies that are oil dependent become more favourable (oil companies will be more profitable). Therefore, investors will find that country's currency more attractive in the foreign exchange market.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
c652f558b106e239052f5d6784e5c885
Equity prices during currency devaluation — Mexico 1994
[ { "docid": "1ebda2a7bb0b077f8bc29ca0eb874729", "text": "Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "34dbb599706ed734ca0886f5f0c026ce", "text": "Investing in the early 70s would have been fine, trying to pile on the boat after the fact (late 70s, early 80s), those people would lose. The fluctuations then had largely to do with the collapse of the USSR. Parallels could certainly be drawn to modern times, but the main thing is that if you invested early, you could ride out the worst of storms without having to worry about a company or a currency becoming worthless overnight.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c480cc34018d4f6ac8d9e295e42efa98", "text": "It is different this time. But I think the risk of asset prices rising is almost as equal as them falling. QE caused asset price inflation, but QE was only to calm/support the market. They're probably not going to stuff that QE money back into the central bank for a very long time either. Maybe, they'll just keep rolling over the bonds out to maturity, while relying on deficits to inflate away the assets at the Fed. https://youtu.be/o8LAUQwv77Q My bet is the main risks going forward are political risks, and continued modest inflation among things not measured by CPI.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7b84c856eb772803ebfa337eef126f3", "text": "\"Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic \"\"ADR conversion rate\"\" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price: Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example): The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls: Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e6e328ddefd77d0000e46e8212a7af", "text": "To answer your original question: There is proof out there. Here is a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that might be worth a read. It has a lot of references to other publications that might help answer your question(s) about TA. You can probably read the whole article then research some of the other ones listed there to come up with a conclusion. Below are some excerpts: Abstract: This article introduces the subject of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market, with emphasis on its importance for questions of market efficiency. “Technicians” view their craft, the study of price patterns, as exploiting traders’ psychological regularities. The literature on technical analysis has established that simple technical trading rules on dollar exchange rates provided 15 years of positive, risk-adjusted returns during the 1970s and 80s before those returns were extinguished. More recently, more complex and less studied rules have produced more modest returns for a similar length of time. Conventional explanations that rely on risk adjustment and/or central bank intervention do not plausibly justify the observed excess returns from following simple technical trading rules. Psychological biases, however, could contribute to the profitability of these rules. We view the observed pattern of excess returns to technical trading rules as being consistent with an adaptive markets view of the world. and The widespread use of technical analysis in foreign exchange (and other) markets is puzzling because it implies that either traders are irrationally making decisions on useless information or that past prices contain useful information for trading. The latter possibility would contradict the “efficient markets hypothesis,” which holds that no trading strategy should be able to generate unusual profits on publicly available information—such as past prices—except by bearing unusual risk. And the observed level of risk-adjusted profitability measures market (in)efficiency. Therefore much research effort has been directed toward determining whether technical analysis is indeed profitable or not. One of the earliest studies, by Fama and Blume (1966), found no evidence that a particular class of TTRs could earn abnormal profits in the stock market. However, more recent research by Brock, Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992) and Sullivan, Timmermann an d White (1999) has provided contrary evidence. And many studies of the foreign exchange market have found evidence that TTRs can generate persistent profits (Poole 6 (1967), Dooley and Shafer (1984), Sweeney (1986), Levich and Thomas (1993), Neely, Weller and Dittmar (1997), Gençay (1999), Lee, Gleason and Mathur (2001) and Martin (2001)).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e437a2c62972a44657f449075e12786", "text": "\"Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down. This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. \"\"Investing\"\" can mean a lot of different things. Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company. A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation. When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever. If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%. In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time. If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed. If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected. In that case it's not really \"\"inflation\"\" that affected the stock returns, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdd6fecc1e7ce846d102fc249edcf623", "text": "One place you might consider looking for answers is in case studies from Harvard Business School. When I was working an MBA, we studied the default of Argentina as part of our economics coursework. Other sources for your consideration might include:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8568a818f3a0c4a7473017be99a53d48", "text": "\"I found an answer by Peter Selinger, in two articles, Tutorial on multiple currency accounting (June 2005, Jan 2011) and the accompanying Multiple currency accounting in GnuCash (June 2005, Feb 2007). Selinger embraces the currency neutrality I'm after. His method uses \"\"[a]n account that is denominated as a difference of multiple currencies... known as a currency trading account.\"\" Currency trading accounts show the gain or loss based on exchange rates at any moment. Apparently GnuCash 2.3.9 added support for multi-currency accounting. I haven't tried this myself. This feature is not enabled by default, and must be turned on explicity. To do so, check \"\"Use Trading Accounts\"\" under File -> Properties -> Accounts. This must be done on a per-file basis. Thanks to Mike Alexander, who implemented this feature in 2007, and worked for over 3 years to convince the GnuCash developers to include it. Older versions of GnuCash, such as 1.8.11, apparently had a feature called \"\"Currency Trading Accounts\"\", but they behaved differently than Selinger's method.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4648dfc15b0c956e6a3a09c8f7728c39", "text": "Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cee9b98982b85e76940d279d5a7f8ddd", "text": "If one of the EURO countries goes bankrupt, then it will destablise the entire financial industry. IE there would be many financial institutions [Banks, Credit Union, Pension Funds, Insurance Funds, Corporates] that are holding EURO Investments in that country will loose their money and this will have a cascading impact ... similar and much bigger than US Sub-prime crisis of 2008. So if your money is in EURO and you are staying in EURO countires, the inflation will mean your money is of less value ... If you are holding USD and staying in EURO and country goes bankrupt then chances are that it will loose value with USD and hence you can convert them to EURO and spend more EUROs to buy the same items ...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1d1cbd0e1908d02ab73a8abb6f63350", "text": "\"The first thing to realize is that the type of chart you saw is not appropriate for long-term comparisons. The vertical axis uses a linear scale, where each unit occupies the same amount of space. This is visually misleading because the relevant information at any point in the chart is \"\"how much is the value going up or down?\"\" and \"\"how much\"\" change depends on how much the value of the investment is at that moment. For example, if you buy something at $10 and the price changes $1, that is significant, 10%. If you buy something at $1000 and the price changes $1, that is not so significant, only 0.1%. The problem in that chart is that 100 Dow points occupy the same space whether the Dow is at 870 or 10800. To get a better feel for the volatility, you should use a log (logarithmic) scale. Google has an option for this. Using it shows: In this chart you can see that the volatility appears much less extreme in recent years. True, the 2006-2009 change is the largest drop, and there might be slightly higher volatility generally, but it is not nearly as extreme-looking. The drops in 1974 and 1987 can be seen to be significant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5b49a3a8fa4b6fa8cd2bfec13bd22e7", "text": "\"There are basically two different markets for ADRs and ordinary shares. 1) The American market, 2) the \"\"local\"\" market. The following is not true for most stocks in \"\"developed\"\" markets. But it is often true that the American market (for ADRs) is far more liquid than the local market for ordinary shares of a developing country. For instance, there was a time when the ADRs of Telmex (Telefonos of Mexico) was the fifth most traded stock in the world, after Exxon (before its merger with Mobil), IBM, Microsoft, and A T&T, meaning that it was easy to trade with low fees on the NYSE. It was much harder and slower to buy the local shares of Telmex in Mexico, on the Mexican exchange. Also, the accompanying currency transactions were harder to execute with the ord, because you have to settle in local currency and pay an FX commission. With the ADR, the exchange rate is \"\"built\"\" into the (dollar) price, and you settle in dollars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "410f540b4ab654bf8bda42f5bd8443f1", "text": "If you make money in currency speculation (as in your example), that is a capital gain. A more complicated example is if you were to buy and then sell stocks on the mexican stock exchange. Your capital gain (or loss) would be the difference in value in US dollars of your stocks accounting for varying exchange rates. It's possible for the stocks to go down and for you to still have a capital gain, and vice versa.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65f64df82912de866c806551dee668fe", "text": "\"You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity. If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The \"\"persistent pressure to further depreciate\"\" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and \"\"appreciates\"\" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B. The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05fb22bec39ba639a5e5e1d1d355b2fe", "text": "The measure of change of value of a currency in relation to itself is inflation (or deflation).", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
9487c7d6d0230aa0793dcca70142d8a5
How are mortgage interest rates determined?
[ { "docid": "615e1ed754f28102037a6a0872d1af4f", "text": "Mortgage or other interest rates are determined by the banks on cost of funds, risk and operating cost. The Fed raises money from the markets by issuing Tresury Bonds at a specified rate. This rate at which it raises money varies depening on the economy. Thus there are 2 rates: the rate at which banks can borrow money from the Fed, which is higher than the rate that the Fed would give banks for excess money deposited with them. So if the cost of borrowing is less, banks can borrow this money from the Fed and loan it to individuals at a slightly higher rate that would cover their costs plus a small profit. The risk associated with a mortgage is less, and hence these would be cheaper, then say a personal loan. If the cost of borrowing goes up, the mortgage rate will go up. If the cost of borrowing money goes down, the cost would come down. Banks may not always borrow money to lend. If they have existing money, they can either park it with the Fed for a lower interest rate, or loan it to individuals for a rate higher than what they would have received from the Fed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8a4333402bf954d50caee744a65301b", "text": "One will find that the fixed 30 year mortgage rate is tightly correlated to the 10 year treasury. An adder of 2-2.5% or so, changing slightly with the rest of the economy, as money can get tight or loose independent of the rate itself. In 2011 we are witnessing low rates yet tough loan standards, this is the phenomenon I am referencing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f057ba558284c21dbce37c95a845abb6", "text": "Sheegan has a great explanation of how the TBA market contributes to mortgage rates. The 30 Year Mortgage rates are closely tied to the 10-Year Treasury. One can track this rate at many stock quoting sites using symbol TNX.", "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": "a8ab10fa53729a333b3bbac5f5281fc0", "text": "As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bd327e9066516fa1c01300257f23a07", "text": "It's easiest to get your payment from the PMT function in Excel or Google Sheets. So a $100,000 30 year mortgage at 3% looks like this: The basic calculation is pretty simple. You take the annual interest rate, say 3%, divided by 12, times the existing principal balance: The idea is that borrowers would like to have a predictable payment. The earlier payments are proportionally more interest than principal than later payments are but that's because there is much more principal outstanding on month 1 than on month 200.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "452f27da8e2c009b017c0b881ec4cf77", "text": "I have answered your question in detail here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12396422/apr-calculation-formula The annuity formula in FDIC document is at first finding PVIFAD present value annuity due factor and multiplying it with annuity payment and then dividing it by an interest factor of (1+i) to reduce the annuity to an ordinary annuity with end of period payments They could have simply used PVIFA and multiplying it with annuity payment to find the present value of an ordinary annuity In any case, you should not follow the directions in FDIC document to find interest rate at which the present value of annuity equals the loan amount. The method they are employing is commonly used by Finance Professors to teach their students how to find internal rate of return. The method is prone to lengthy trial and error attempts without having any way of knowing what rate to use as an initial guess to kick off the interest rate calculations So this is what I would suggest if you are not short on time and would like to get yourself familiar with numerical methods or iterative techniques to find internal rate of return There are way too many methods at disposal when it comes to finding interest rates some of which include All of the above methods use a seed value as a guess rate to start the iterative calculations and if results from successive calculations tend to converge within a certain absolute Error bound, we assume that one of the rates have been found as there may be as many rates as the order of the polynomial in this case 36 There are however some other methods that help find all rates by making use of Eigenvalues, but for this you would need a lengthy discourse of Linear Algebra One of the methods that I have come across which was published in the US in 1969 (the year I was born :) ) is called the Jenkins Traub method named after the two individuals who worked jointly on finding a solution to all roots of a polynomial discarding any previous work on the same subject I been trying to go over the Jenkins Traub algorithm but am having difficulty understanding the complex nature of the calculations required to find all roots of the polynomial In summary you would be better of reading up on this site about the Newton Raphson method to find IRR", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c792b0ad91138ee36099aef622b3d59c", "text": "\"The answer to almost all questions of this type is to draw a diagram. This will show you in graphical fashion the timing of all payments out and payments received. Then, if all these payments are brought to the same date and set equal to each other (using the desired rate of return), the equation to be solved is generated. In this case, taking the start of the bond's life as the point of reference, the various amounts are: Pay out = X Received = a series of 15 annual payments of $70, the first coming in 1 year. This can be brought to the reference date using the formula for the present value of an ordinary annuity. PLUS Received = A single payment of $1000, made 15 years in the future. This can be brought to the reference date using the simple interest formula. Set the pay-out equal to the present value of the payments received and solve for X I am unaware of the difference, if any, between \"\"current rate\"\" and \"\"rate to maturity\"\" Finding the rate for such a series of payments would start out the same as above, but solving the resulting equation for the interest rate would be a daunting task...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4e5e4d432355e265639b5ac35bdbe3a", "text": "\"Banks make money on load origination fees. The \"\"points\"\" you pay or closing costs are the primary benefit to the banks. A vast majority of the time risks associated with the mortgage are sold to another party. FYI, the same is true with investment banks. In general, the transaction costs (which are ignored by modern finance theory) are the main thing running the incentives for the industry.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ab90eea050860a8a0fd05acc26713a6", "text": "\"To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is. You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down. Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to \"\"twist\"\" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfa2ffd7e6e3892c85d2adf7481d1bdf", "text": "\"I am trying to set up a formula that will find interest-rate behind first pencil sheets at car dealerships. I am not a car finance expert so I need someone who is intimate with how these loans really work. The points of data I get at first pencil are: 1) Amount Financed 2) Period 3) Monthly Payment The data I need to extrapolate: 1) Rate in percentile so that I can compare to my bank's offer. I have tried this and many other stock \"\"find rate\"\" formulas with no accurate results: R=(A/P^(1/n)-1)n\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b03915b188d6fcb35d4155487adbc78c", "text": "In the US, our standard fixed rate mortgages would show no difference. My payment is calculated to be due on the 1st of each month. When I first got a mortgage, I was intrigued by this question, and experimented. I paid early, on the 15th, 2 weeks early, and looked at my next statement. It matched the amortization, exactly. Mortgages at the time were over 12%, so I'd imagine having seen the benefit of that 1/2% for the early payment. Next I paid on the last day before penalty, in effect, 2 weeks late. I expected to see extra interest accrue, again, just a bit, but enough to see when compared to the amortization table. Again, no difference, the next statement showed the same value to the penny.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5112988b5497852ace1cbc38ea624643", "text": "Your calculations are correct if you use the same mortgage rate for both the 15 and 30 year mortgages. However, generally when you apply for a 15 year mortgage the interest rate is significantly less than the 30 year rate. The rate is lower for a number of reasons but mainly there is less risk for the bank on a 15 year payoff plan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebe6ac0b79f9cec2027e75b7e1e713e5", "text": "You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aefe743b20c09ba211183e7b92a884ed", "text": "Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt. The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt. This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation. 1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure. If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeaaa8a25d877e0bee9104edeae47c39", "text": "The periodic rate (here, the interest charged per month), as you would enter into a finance calculator is 9.05%. Multiply by 12 to get 108.6% or calculate APR at 182.8%. Either way it's far more than 68%. If the $1680 were paid after 365 days, it would be simple interest of 68%. For the fact that payment are made along the way, the numbers change. Edit - A finance calculator has 5 buttons to cover the calculations: N = number of periods or payments %i = the interest per period PV = present value PMT = Payment per period FV= Future value In your example, you've given us the number of periods, 12, present value, $1000, future value, 0, and payment, $140. The calculator tells me this is a monthly rate of 9%. As Dilip noted, you can compound as you wish, depending on what you are looking for, but the 9% isn't an opinion, it's the math. TI BA-35 Solar. Discontinued, but available on eBay. Worth every cent. Per mhoran's comment, I'll add the spreadsheet version. I literally copied and pasted his text into a open cell, and after entering the cell shows, which I rounded to 9.05%. Note, the $1000 is negative, it starts as an amount owed. And for Dilip - 1.0905^12 = 2.8281 or 182.8% effective rate. If I am the loanshark lending this money, charging 9% per month, my $1000 investment returns $2828 by the end of the year, assuming, of course, that the payment is reinvested immediately. The 108 >> 182 seems disturbing, but for lower numbers, even 12% per year, the monthly compounding only results in 12.68%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56a58342b49c9ab6bb9051c3635c622e", "text": "This is more a question for /r/personalfinance, but I'll answer it anyways. Just use the RATE formula in excel. =RATE(numperiods,monthly payment,amount financed)*12 Just make sure the number of periods is in months, the payment is negative, and to multiply the whole thing by 12 to get the annual interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4bbf4a437c658dd7ffd0efc29c1c713", "text": "The prime rate is actually the rate at which banks lend to consumers/businesses with the highest credit ratings. The bank rate (more commonly known as the overnight rate) is the interest rate at which banks can borrow funds from the Bank of Canada or from each other.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
4dd3f763ca400baf543192e3299fa2c2
Who creates money? Central banks or commercial banks?
[ { "docid": "0b4e41c69874fd33f60e3e23225eb736", "text": "A central bank typically introduces new money into the system by printing new money to purchase items from member banks. The central bank can purchase whatever it chooses. It typically purchases government bonds but the Federal Reserve purchased mortgage-backed-securities (MBS) during the 2008 panic since the FED was the only one willing to pay full price for MBS after the crash of 2008. The bank, upon receipt of the new money, can loan the money out. A minimum reserve ratio specifies how much money the bank has to keep on hand. A reserve ratio of 10% means the bank must have $10 for every $100 in loans. As an example, let's say the FED prints up some new money to purchase some office desks from a member bank. It prints $10,000 to purchase some desks. The bank receives $10,000. It can create up to $100,000 in loans without exceeding the 10% minimum reserve ratio requirement. How would it do so? A customer would come to the bank asking for a $100,000 loan. The bank would create an account for the customer and credit $100,000 to the customer's account. There is a problem, however. The customer borrowed the money to buy a boat so the customer writes a check for $100,000 to the boat company. The boat company attempts to deposit the $100,000 check into the boat company's bank. The boat company's bank will ask the originating bank for $100,000 in cash. The originating bank only has $10,000 in cash on hand so this demand will immediately bankrupt the originating bank. So what actually happens? The originating bank actually only loans out reserves * (1 - minimum reserve ratio) so it can meet demands for the loans it originates. In our example the bank that received the initial $10,000 from the FED will only loan out $10,000 * (1-0.1) = $9,000. This allows the bank to cover checks written by the person who borrowed the $9,000. The reserve ratio for the bank is now $1,000/$9,000 which is 11% and is over the minimum reserve requirement. The borrower makes a purchase with the borrowed $9,000 and the seller deposits the $9,000 in his bank. The bank that receives that $9,000 now has an additional $9,000 in reserves which it will use to create loans of $9,000 * (1 - 0.1) = $8100. This continual fractional reserve money creation process will continue across the entire banking system resulting in $100,000 of new money created from $10,000. This process is explained very well here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0440d46c5a30fa44e6392fd3acc13e8a", "text": "\"Scenario 1 is typically the better description. If commercial banks were allowed to simply \"\"create\"\" money, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. In the U.S., the central bank is the Federal Reserve or Fed, and is the only entity (not the government, not the banks, not the people) that is allowed to create money \"\"out of thin air\"\". It does this primarily by buying government debt. The government spends more than it takes in, and so to come up with the deficit, it issues bonds. The Fed buys a certain amount of these bonds, and simply prints the money (or more realistically authorized the electronic transfer of $X to the Treasury) which the government then spends. That places money in the hands of corporations and the people, who turn around and spend it. However, long-term, the interest charges on money borrowed from the Fed will actually remove money from the economy. The central banks, therefore, have to constantly make marginal changes to various monetary policy tools they have when the economy is just humming along. If they do nothing, then too much of a short-term increase in money supply will result in there being \"\"too much money\"\" which makes an individual monetary unit worth less (inflation), while making money too hard to get will reduce the rate at which it's spent, reducing GDP and causing recessions. The exact scenario you describe is typically seen in cases where the government is running with a balanced budget, and the central bank thus can't give its \"\"new money\"\" to the government to spend when it wants to increase the money supply. In that situation, the central bank instead lowers its lending rate, the percentage interest that it will charge on loans made to other banks, thereby encouraging those banks to borrow more of the money created by the central bank. Those banks will then use the money to make loans, invest in the market, etc etc which puts the money in the economy. In the U.S., the Fed does have this tool as well, but increases or decreases in the \"\"Federal Funds Rate\"\" are typically used to influence the rate that banks charge each other to borrow money, thus encouraging or discouraging this lending. A lowering in the interest rate makes banks more likely to borrow from each other (and from the Fed but the amount of money \"\"created\"\" this way is a drop in the bucket compared to current \"\"quantitative easing\"\"), and thus increases the \"\"turnover\"\" of the existing money in the economy (how many times a theoretical individual dollar is spent in a given time period).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d8a54ce401b8444a25daaee08bf9786", "text": "Empirial evidence for the second scenario: Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence. Excerpt: It was examined whether in the process of making money available to the borrower the bank transfers these funds from other accounts (within or outside the bank). In the process of making loaned money available in the borrower's bank account, it was found that the bank did not transfer the money away from other internal or external accounts, resulting in a rejection of both the fractional reserve theory and the financial intermediation theory. Instead, it was found that the bank newly ‘invented’ the funds by crediting the borrower's account with a deposit, although no such deposit had taken place. This is in line with the claims of the credit creation theory. Thus it can now be said with confidence for the first time – possibly in the 5000 years' history of banking - that it has been empirically demonstrated that each individual bank creates credit and money out of nothing, when it extends what is called a ‘bank loan’. The bank does not loan any existing money, but instead creates new money. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks out of thin air.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "998811179d4010020bb3b3408dd346b8", "text": "\"left out of the pictures is the degree to which the ECB is buying their own bonds. At least with the FedResInk, we know what sort of \"\"open market\"\" action is being taken to keep interest rates held as close to zero as possible. I coke dealer can make sure his \"\"sales\"\" are through the roof by using his own product, but eventually he has to buy more supply. I think people are confused about central banks being that coke dealer or being his supplier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802", "text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b40d1d741cd2ee1d0e634f17623de06a", "text": "\"Since you're an idiot, here is a quote [\"\"The Bank of England (formally the Governor and Company of the Bank of England) is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694, it is the second oldest central bank in the world \"\"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England). Note that this bank, **founded in 1694**, is the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Now a quote from you: &gt;The UK did NOT sell debt and simultaneously purchase its own debt in the past (until modern times). Owned, fool. And another quote to rub it in \"\"The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again.\"\" You still have not listed an empire that did not purchase it's own debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c65aff309720e8af2811e9306f15d440", "text": "Yes, money is created out of thin air, and it is a good and necessary thing. All money, even commodity money such as gold, is given value only by what can be traded for it. So in that sense *all* money is created out of thin air, because it represents the payment of a future debt. Money merely serves as IOUs between traders. Who do you think should be responsible for adding money to the system? Inndividuals? Been tried, doesn't work so well. Individual banks? Been tried, doesn't work so well. Nation states? Works a lot better, although can still fail. So far having a central bank issue money as an economy needs it for trade has been the most successful method to deal with who gets to issue the IOUs. EDIT: see my post above on a little how and why it works as it does.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d42d3a0dc200cd5cfe6956bd4b2fceaf", "text": "There are two answers to this (excluding central banks which are really just a banks to private banks): **Please note: This is an oversimplification and not accounting for the fact that banks operate in both categories now. ** Banks are either depository institutions or financial service/transaction providers. * Depository institutions are your typical retail bank (regions, boa retail, wells fargo retail, etc). They accept deposits from account holders and lend out via reserve lending to mortgages and business loans for their revenue generation. * Financial service/transaction providers are better known as IBanks. You have your Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, etc. These have traditionally been banks that do not accept deposit accounts but revenue generation comes from financial services such as asset management and research or from financial transaction facilitation such as market making (offering both buy/sell quotes in capital markets). This is generally the role that banks have played historically from the medieval ages on... They started out as being entities that provided access to connecting buyers and sellers of markets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc00fd9613f0c6d3732e85398ec34f32", "text": "borrow money from the Central Bank Wrong premise. They cannot borrow as much as they want and they cannot borrow without collateral i.e. government debt instruments they hold or any other instrument with value. And banks don’t have unlimited collateral to borrow against. Secondly central banks aren’t in the business of lending unlimited money. The more money they lend out, the more is the money supply which stokes inflation which will eventually lead them to stop lending. At any point of time they want a certain amount of money movement, so they can control inflation and interest rates within an agreed limit and as limited by their economy. No sane central bank would want to stoke hyperflation by printing money at will e,g, Helicopter money. So the only other way for banks is to accept deposits from private individuals. You can also argue that banks make money by connecting lenders and borrowers and make their profit by being the middleman without using their assets. So you can say they are making a profit with the minimum usage of their capital. Albeit they have the central bank looking over their shoulder to police their behaviour. While some banks do charge fees for keeping deposits Yes but many provide certain extra services for which they charge. That is how they differentiate between no fee accounts and fee paying accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b546e3ca3edf9892dc011ac3e6ca69", "text": "It's quite the contrary. If there are mass failures of banks, then the money supply will collapse and there will be vicious deflation, increasing the value of money held as cash. It's only if governments print money to bail the banks out that there's a (small) risk of hyperinflation and the effective collapse of the currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eba6fb586308512e456cfc30b0cfd7e9", "text": "Trade credit is fine and works without a central bank. All it needs is contract law. The perversion of that is using trade credit collected from somebody else to pay for goods and services mandated by the government as legal tender. That creates false savings that expand exponentially. It probably wouldn't happen much in a free market unless bought at a steep discount by the person receiving it. This is how collection companies work, they buy receivables from telephone companies or other businesses at a steep discount and try to collect on them. In a non-fiat system there would be plenty of trade credit, because how else are you going to drum up business? Personal relationships would ensure that debts were made good, everyone in the economy would be a banker with their own money or goods. I'm not saying we need libertarian minarchist government here for any of this to work. The government could intervene from time to time and tax to build infrastructure or raise a military for defence or whatever they really wanted but at least they wouldn't be creating booms and busts with their borrowing activity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81fb5e49a75af4893288857e2a4fc553", "text": "This is adequately covered by the differential between lending and receiving interest rates. ...and technically, they pay the central bank an interest rate on the money lent as well, which means that they *are* paying back equity holders (all be it very slowly and very slightly). The equity holders have the ability to will money into existence, so there's no artificial limitation they face with respect to the branch banking system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c64cffb9f5b04dd8da7726e4221e02f7", "text": "Yes there is an inverse relationship but that's how it's meant to work. Debt creates money. Banks do lend out customers savings for return interest as the bank can make a profit rather than the cash just sitting there. The process of Lending pumps money into the economy that wouldn't be there otherwise so it creates money. The banks will either have a cash deficit or surplus at end of each day and either need to borrow from other banks to balance their books or if in surplus lend to other banks to make interest because that's more profitable than holding the cash surplus. The overnight cash rate then determines interest rates we pay. High private debt occurs when lots of people are investing &amp; buying things so there is stimulation and growth in the economy. A lot more tax is being paid in these periods so government debt is lower because they are getting lots of tax money. Also To stimulate the economy into this growth period the government usually sells off large cash bonds (lowering their debt) to release cash into the economy, the more cash available the less banks have to borrow to cover deficits on overnight cash market and the lower interest rates will be. Lower interest rates = more borrowing and higher Private debt. The government can't let growth get out of control as they don't want high inflation so they do the opposite to slow down growth, I.e buy up cash bonds and take money out of economy causing higher interest rates and less borrowing = More debt for government less for private.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3eb06ff7ab226eddd36864af44dba95c", "text": "\"They could have printed 5.0T or 10.0T or 1000 quadrillion. It doesnt make any difference for the steps a Central Bank takes. They choose a figure based on balancing inflation vs interest rates. The legal powers Central Banks or IMF have do vary (i.e. to perform quantitative easing, purchasing company bonds, purchasing retail bank bonds) but they all follow that principle. Their tools are very limited and theyre legally obligated to seek certain targets like \"\"inflation between 0 to 2%\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7fb572eaf82e37b17cdfe0713d57919", "text": "Commercial banks are not allowed to create real money. The confusion comes from the different ways money is counted. In M2, deposits count as money. So if you take $100 and deposit it in the bank, M2 will count the $100 deposit as money, as well as the $100 cash the bank has from the deposit. So under M2 the money supply has increased by $100, but no real money was created. Commercial banks can't create real money out of thin air, and they can't loan out money they don't have.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "854c8fa8a6896a7e1004e68dcdb3a9be", "text": "I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "577a3a46a94f18e2d36e4c3e522350c2", "text": "Central Banks always controlled by politics. Bush Jr. told Greenspan that he needed to be reelected, and all Greenspan could do was lower interest rates to help, and that fueled more speculation by the commercial bankers. The president appoints the fed chairman, so dont tell me that they are independent of politicians. the whole notion that a central banker must be independent of the government force is fuking insane. You let private bankers control your monetary policy and you lose your nation's sovereignty. I'd rather put my trust to elected officials than unelected private financial mercenaries. Nationalize the FED.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62e5deb81b126cbdf0a917b716abcd64", "text": "Inflation is a reflection on the expansion of the money supply, aka debt, being created by a central bank. Fiat currencies usually inflate, because there is no limit to the amount of debt that can be created. The consequences of reckless money supply expansion can be seen throughout history, see Zimbabwe, though there have been many others...Brazil, Argentinia, etc...", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
ad9683f572cbdb74889527e045e59e8c
How to rebalance a passive portfolio if I speculate a war is coming?
[ { "docid": "119329bb0d7d3ba1276201a248f9738b", "text": "At a risk of stating the obvious: a passive portfolio doesn't try to speculate on such matters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16bb013ce7ff372456293c42092fc655", "text": "Normally, in a war everybody suffers and the entire economy goes down. Military contractors do better than average, but the average sucks. The way to take advantage of knowing a war is coming is to leave as soon as possible. There are strategic materials that can become valuable in a war, but such investments are generally very specialized and not something an ordinary investor would be in a position to exploit. The most profitable businesses in war are food, oil, and ammunition.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "27956ee0d314fb8c8e1a361b3b04ae07", "text": "I would say your decision making is reasonable. You are in the middle of Brexit and nobody knows what that means. Civil society in the United States is very strained at the moment. The one seeming source of stability in Europe, Germany, may end up with a very weakened government. The only country that is probably stable is China and it has weak protections for foreign investors. Law precedes economics, even though economics often ends up dictating the law in the long run. The only thing that may come to mind is doing two things differently. The first is mentally dropping the long-term versus short-term dichotomy and instead think in terms of the types of risks an investment is exposed to, such as currency risk, political risk, liquidity risk and so forth. Maturity risk is just one type of risk. The second is to consider taking some types of risks that are hedged either by put contracts to limit the downside loss, or consider buying longer-dated call contracts using a small percentage of your money. If the underlying price falls, then the call contracts will be a total loss, but if the price increases then you will receive most of the increase (minus the premium). If you are uncomfortable purchasing individual assets directly, then I would say you are probably doing everything that you reasonably can do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59ee99fc3853372dbb802b2e295679f8", "text": "Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80923207a6f183be4e8cc88ae83b06f9", "text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04a2944916adb2fe6a9cff9211f515d9", "text": "Yes, rebalancing with new money avoids capital gains taxes and loads (although if you're financially literate enough to be thinking about rebalancing techniques, I'm surprised to hear that you're invested in funds with loads). On the other hand, if it's taking you years to rebalance, then: (a) you are not rebalancing anywhere near frequently enough. Rebalancing should be something you do every 6 months or 1 year, such that it would take only a few weeks or maybe a month of new investment to get back in balance. (b) you will be out-of-balance for quite a long time, while the whole point of the theory of rebalancing is to always be mathematically prepared for swings in the market. Any time spent out of balance represents that much more risk that an unexpected market move can seriously hurt your portfolio. You should weigh the time it will take you to rebalance the long way (i.e. the risk cost of not rebalancing immediately) vs. the taxes and fees involved in rebalancing quickly. If you had said that it would take you only a couple weeks or a month to rebalance the long way, I would say that the long way is fine. But the prospect of spending years without a balanced portfolio seems far more costly to me than any expenses you might incur rebalancing quickly. Since it's almost the end of the calendar year, have you considered doing two quick rebalances, one this year, and another in January? That way half of the tax consequences would happen in April, and the other half not until the next April, giving you plenty of time to scrounge up the money. Also, even if you have no capital losses this year with which to offset some of your expected capital gains, you would have all of next year to harvest some losses against next year's half of the rebalancing gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6550eb8b1f267dd995068f20e63ae48f", "text": "My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67f92908515289320624d7c88b6ad245", "text": "I'v actually heard of this before, the idea is that you gamble across the spread. Most of these have a place in a risky asset class in portfolios. Think of it as the little bit of crack you do on the side of your vanilla life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f9e5de579b5f93a6f62a45d4bce105d", "text": "\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17cee3ebfdac8768670d920046c52595", "text": "You're wise to consider mitigating risks considering your age and portfolio size, but 'in' and 'out' are so reductive and binary. Why not be both? Leave some in and let it ride, providing growth but taking risk. Put some in bonds, where it'll earn more than cash and maybe zig when stocks zag. I applaud you for calling the last two crashes, but remember: a lot of people called them. Jeremy Bentham called the dot com bubble *years* in advance - of course, he got out too early, and the investors in his funds suffered for it. Timing means getting the sell and the buy right, which very few can do. Hence my advice to hold a balanced portfolio or *if you really do have the golden touch* make use of that ability and get rich - no need to work a 9 to 5 if you can call market crashes accurately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d1babfc30d5ff74831c9c3ab4156b3c", "text": "\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "371c1e838f63884778df632c1758dce0", "text": "Considering the historical political instability of your nation, real property may have higher risk than normal. In times of political strife, real estate plummets, precisely when the money's needed. At worst, the property may be seized by the next government. Also, keeping the money within the country is even more risky because bank accounts are normally looted by either the entering gov't or exiting one. The safest long run strategy with the most potential for your family is to get the money out into various stable nations with good history of protecting foreign investors such as Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong. Once out, the highest expected return can be expected from internationally diversified equities; however, it should be known that the value will be very variant year to year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45856bc2be034a008457fdc32d73a8dc", "text": "A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a60e5b4f3373df169d9c71b7bff93859", "text": "It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term. The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss. If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce. It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdf6d44b9b633d26c622da16169598a4", "text": "They can rebalance and often times at a random manager's discretion. ETF's are just funds, and funds all have their own conditions, read the prospectus, thats the only source of truth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb4539d14a460c05bbedaebb6a7be667", "text": "Trying to engage in arbitrage with the metal in nickels (which was actually worth more than a nickel already, last I checked) is cute but illegal, and would be more effective at an industrial scale anyway (I don't think you could make it cost-effective at an individual level). There are more effective inflation hedges than nickels and booze. Some of them even earn you interest. You could at least consider a more traditional commodities play - it's certainly a popular strategy these days. A lot of people shoot for gold, as it's a traditional hedge in a crisis, but there are concerns that particular market is overheated, so you might consider alternatives to that. Normal equities (i.e. the stock market) usually work out okay in an inflationary environment, and can earn you a return as they're doing so.... and it's not like commodities aren't volatile and subject to the whims of the world economy too. TIPs (inflation-indexed Treasury bonds) are another option with less risk, but also a weaker return (and still have interest rate risks involved, since those aren't directly tied to inflation either).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f5601bc847b9b759754505aebe97c44", "text": "Unfortunately I believe there is not a good answer to this because it's not a well posed problem. It sounds like you are looking for a theoretically sound criteria to decide whether to sell or hold. Such a criteria would take the form of calculating the cost of continuing to hold a stock and comparing it to the transactions cost of replacing it in your portfolio. However, your criteria for stock selection doesn't take this form. You appear to have some ad hoc rules defining whether you want the stock in your portfolio that provide no way to calculate a cost of having something in your portfolio you don't want or failing to have something you do want. Criteria for optimally rebalancing a portfolio can't really be more quantitative than the rules that define the portfolio.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
3f05a44a19a56c3359474c3cb19b4e35
Ways to trade the Euro debt crisis
[ { "docid": "776a0fad3abfce8445dedec1de473ff6", "text": "Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac121912dc1c747d695b32eb58af4f23", "text": "\"The way I am trading this is: I am long the USD / EUR in cash. I also hold USD / EUR futures, which are traded on the Globex exchange. I am long US equities which have a low exposure to Europe and China (as I expect China to growth significantly slower if the European weakens). I would not short US equities because Europe-based investors (like me) are buying comparatively \"\"safe\"\" US equities to reduce their EUR exposure.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "d2903c879070395bd1377a25c3f82b31", "text": "Huh? What does a flight to safety (cheaper US borrowing rates) have to do with the crisis not spreading if something goes wrong in Italy? It won't be the same over here - it will hit the banking system and companies tied to Europe rather than the sovereign market, but if something happens in Italy we'll feel it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa6070b128d30dc1befad2f10a9c1934", "text": "theoretically this concept makes sense. However as recent numbers have shown ( I do not have the source handy but one can simply obtain this information via the ECB's website) banks have tapped this LTRO, something in the likes of 500 billion or so, and instead of buying Sovereign debt, they instead prefer to park this money with the ECB, paying something like 25 bps on deposits. so instead of using this LTRO money to buy Sovereigns or perhaps lend to other banks, easing the strain on LIBOR, banks have just parked this money back with the ECB, as the ECB has seen its deposits once again reach record amounts (again, see the ECB website for proof). Just this speaks volumes about the LTRO carry trade and how it is evidently not going to achieve its long term goal of bringing spreads down in Europe. Perhaps in the short run yes, but if you look at the fundamentals (EURUSD, the EUR Basis Swap and the OIS-LIBOR Spread) they show how the situation in Europe is far from over, and the LTRO is nothing close to a long term and stable solution", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7577e9124a4a8752111a7e91e5033a0", "text": "The idea behind this move is to avoid or mitigate long-term deflationary pressure and to boost the competitiveness of Swiss exporters. This is primarily a Swiss-based initiative that does not appear likely to have a major impact on the broader Eurozone. However, some pressure will be felt by other currencies as investors look to purchase - ie. this is not a great scenario for other countries wanting to keep their currencies weak. In terms of personal wealth - if you hold Swiss f then you are impacted. However, 1.2 is still very strong (most analysts cite 1.3 as more realistic) so there seems little need for a reaction of any kind at the personal level at this time, although diversity - as ever - is good. It should also be noted that changing the peg is a possibility, and that the 1.3 does seem to be the more realistic level. If you hold large amounts of Swiss f then this might cause you to look at your forex holdings. For the man in the street, probably not an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "531b4168ddf30bcc15f30b86c0f9b4e3", "text": "You could buy Bitcoins. They are even more deflationary than Swiss Francs. But the exchange rate is currently high, and so is the risk in case of volatility. So maybe buy an AltCoin instead. See altcoin market capitalization for more information. Basically, all you'd be doing is changing SwissFrancs into Bitcoin/AltCoin. You don't need a bank to store it. You don't need to stockpile cash at home. Stays liquid, there's no stock portfolio (albeit a coin portfolio), unlike in stocks there are no noteworthy buy and sell commissions, and the central bank can't just change the bills as in classic-cash-currency. The only risk is volatility in the coin market, which is not necessarely a small risk. Should coins have been going down, then for as long as you don't need that money and keep some for everyday&emergency use on a bank account, you can just wait until said coins re-climb - volatility goes both ways after all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d87984f8fd0b68c76fb7161190f20fd", "text": "\"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a \"\"new drachma\"\". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a4a2be1c29e9de79c105c97a28e539e", "text": "You forgot the biggest thing: Japan still controls its own currency and Greece does not. If you don't control your currency, you have much more limited options when it comes to borrowing money. It is why US states can't borrow a lot of money, they all have to share the US dollar which no one state controls. So states are used to making cutbacks in hard times, but the Eurozone nations have not adopted this mindset. Greece isn't in trouble because it borrowed too much, it's in trouble because it borrowed so much *and has to share the Euro*. Greece can't inflate its currency, so if they can't make a payment they default, no one wants to lend to a place that might default. If Greece had its own currency still there would be no currency crisis in Europe, just some inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f4e4d68c7f8d9a2124a3ce2c0c670d5", "text": "**Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union: Monetary policy inflexibility** Since membership of the eurozone establishes a single monetary policy for the respective states, they can no longer use an isolated monetary policy, e. g. to increase their competitiveness at the cost of other eurozone members by printing money and devalue, or to print money to finance excessive government deficits or pay interest on unsustainable high government debt levels. As a consequence, if member states do not manage their economy in a way that they can show a fiscal discipline (as they were obliged by the Maastricht treaty), they will sooner or later risk a sovereign debt crisis in their country without the possibility to print money as an easy way out. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.23", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1ff24e1167bbff2621b79995be46833", "text": "the problem now is A LOT of people dont have confidence in the euro, and they are taking their money out of it , and confidence is the only thing that backs the euro, or any fiat money. It's gonna get worst before it gets better unfortunately...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "879df5cccfdb6e93aa59f97d4b067107", "text": "Russia current account. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/current-account US current account https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account Russia balance of trade https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/balance-of-trade US balance of trade https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade Forex reserve by country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-exchange_reserves List of country by oil import size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_imports . If I have to make a wild guess, country with huge deficit everything and no saving usually sinks faster in time of crisis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a34530bf8080f6caa6d2ebd0f47428c2", "text": "\"Yes, I'm a big picture guy. Like when the central banks opened unlimited short term lines recently the first thing I thought was \"\"now hedge funds can short the euro with impunity!\"\" So, short bets on the euro became a no brainer even as the market was perversely celebrating the announcement with a euro rally. Almost as if they have no idea how the bigger picture works. As if all liquidity is created equally. All it meant to me was that European banks would not have to call in the lines of credit they extend to hedge funds for THREE YEARS. That is enough time to crash the euro, hold a funeral and dance on the grave. It is just musical chairs over there. All the banks know the EU is coming for them an they all want to be in the right capital position to survive the banhammer. They'll sell out the euro to get there. I think I'm a bit too jaded for Graham style fundamental analysis. Then again I do use strong companies as my preferred trading vehicles. So, maybe I do a hybrid.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4346f7b4245d33e783f7a3756f36ccb2", "text": "I vehemently disagree with this. Greek crisis is completely different form Spanish, Irish or Portuguese crisis. Greece has a balance of payments + fiscal crisis, due to a government which has not been balancing its budgets for decades (ever?). Greece cannot spend its way out of this crisis because this isn't a demand led crisis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0afc4be53a7d5723c723f6f6974db822", "text": "\"The biggest risk you have when a country defaults on its currency is a major devaluation of the currency. Since the EURO is a fiat currency, like almost all developed nations, its \"\"promise\"\" comes from the expectation that its union and system will endure. The EURO is a basket of countries and as such could probably handle bailing out countries or possibly letting some default on their sovereign debt without killing the EURO itself. A similar reality happens in the United States with some level of regularity with state and municipal debt being considered riskier than Federal debt (it isn't uncommon for cities to default). The biggest reason the EURO will probably lose a LOT of value initially is if any nation defaults there isn't a track record as to how the EU member body will respond. Will some countries attempt to break out of the EU? If the member countries fracture then the EURO collapses rendering any and all EURO notes useless. It is that political stability that underlies the value of the EURO. If you are seriously concerned about the risk of a falling EURO and its long term stability then you'd do best buying a hedge currency or devising a basket of hedge currencies to diversify risk. Many will recommend you buy Gold or other precious metals, but I think the idea is silly at best. It is not only hard to buy precious metals at a \"\"fair\"\" value it is even harder to sell them at a fair value. Whatever currency you hold needs to be able to be used in transactions with ease. Doesn't do you any good having $20K in gold coins and no one willing to buy them (as the seller at the store will usually want currency and not gold coins). If you want to go the easy route you can follow the same line of reasoning Central Banks do. Buy USD and hold it. It is probably the world's safest currency to hold over a long period of time. Current US policy is inflationary so that won't help you gain value, but that depends on how the EU responds to a sovereign debt crisis; if one matures.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dd6ac0337c6ae43d240dcf6908189ba", "text": "That's interesting. So Spain could be back in crisis mode if a crisis were to occur in Latam? The difference is quite large so it must mean Spain owns a heck of a lot of foreign assets producing significant returns relative to their GDP...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e13140ddbbd5bb612d992c09669ccc10", "text": "\"In essence the problem that the OP identified is not that the FX market itself has poor liquidity but that retail FX brokerage sometimes have poor counterparty risk management. The problem is the actual business model that many FX brokerages have. Most FX brokerages are themselves customers of much larger money center banks that are very well capitalized and provide ample liquidity. By liquidity I mean the ability to put on a position of relatively decent size (long EURUSD say) at any particular time with a small price impact relative to where it is trading. For spot FX, intraday bid/ask spreads are extremely small, on the order of fractions of pips for majors (EUR/USD/GBP/JPY/CHF). Even in extremely volatile situations it rarely becomes much larger than a few pips for positions of 1 to 10 Million USD equivalent notional value in the institutional market. Given that retail traders rarely trade that large a position, the FX spot market is essentially very liquid in that respect. The problem is that there are retail brokerages whose business model is to encourage excessive trading in the hopes of capturing that spread, but not guaranteeing that it has enough capital to always meet all client obligations. What does get retail traders in trouble is that most are unaware that they are not actually trading on an exchange like with stocks. Every bid and ask they see on the screen the moment they execute a trade is done against that FX brokerage, and not some other trader in a transparent central limit order book. This has some deep implications. One is the nifty attribute that you rarely pay \"\"commission\"\" to do FX trades unlike in stock trading. Why? Because they build that cost into the quotes they give you. In sleepy markets, buyers and sellers cancel out, they just \"\"capture\"\" that spread which is the desired outcome when that business model functions well. There are two situations where the brokerage's might lose money and capital becomes very important. In extremely volatile markets, every one of their clients may want to sell for some reason, this forces the FX brokers to accumulate a large position in the opposite side that they have to offload. They will trade in the institutional market with other brokerages to net out their positions so that they are as close to flat as possible. In the process, since bid/ask spreads in the institutional market is tighter than within their own brokerage by design, they should still make money while not taking much risk. However, if they are not fast enough, or if they do not have enough capital, the brokerage's position might move against them too quickly which may cause them lose all their capital and go belly up. The brokerage is net flat, but there are huge offsetting positions amongst its clients. In the example of the Swiss Franc revaluation in early 2015, a sudden pop of 10-20% would have effectively meant that money in client accounts that were on the wrong side of the trade could not cover those on the other side. When this happens, it is theoretically the brokerage's job to close out these positions before it wipes out the value of the client accounts, however it would have been impossible to do so since there were no prices in between the instantaneous pop in which the brokerage could have terminated their client's losing positions, and offload the risk in the institutional market. Since it's extremely hard to ask for more money than exist in the client accounts, those with strong capital positions simply ate the loss (such as Oanda), those that fared worse went belly up. The irony here is that the more leverage the brokerage gave to their clients, the less money would have been available to cover losses in such an event. Using an example to illustrate: say client A is long 1 contract at $100 and client B is short 1 contract at $100. The brokerage is thus net flat. If the brokerage had given 10:1 leverage, then there would be $10 in each client's account. Now instantaneously market moves down $10. Client A loses $10 and client B is up $10. Brokerage simply closes client A's position, gives $10 to client B. The brokerage is still long against client B however, so now it has to go into the institutional market to be short 1 contract at $90. The brokerage again is net flat, and no money actually goes in or out of the firm. Had the brokerage given 50:1 leverage however, client A only has $2 in the account. This would cause the brokerage close client A's position. The brokerage is still long against client B, but has only $2 and would have to \"\"eat the loss\"\" for $8 to honor client B's position, and if it could not do that, then it technically became insolvent since it owes more money to its clients than it has in assets. This is exactly the reason there have been regulations in the US to limit the amount of leverage FX brokerages are allowed to offer to clients, to assure the brokerage has enough capital to pay what is owed to clients.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9068374da97395610198f6d0ad280764", "text": "Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
4ba5ea02ff0fb9e0a006ede881e6314c
Brent crude vs. USD market value
[ { "docid": "e28f9eea5648bd04f0d3a9cd12740871", "text": "I don't think the two are particularly linked. While Brick is right in that the price of oil is denominated in dollars, I don't think that's responsible for most of the movement here. Oil has been weak for intrinsic reasons related to oil: supply/demand imbalance, largely. (Oil also was way over-priced back when it was > $100 a barrel; a lot of that was due to worries about instability in the Middle East.) The dollar has been strong for other, separate intrinsic reasons. The American economy has had a stronger rebound than Europe or Asia; while we were hit hard in the 2008 recession, we rebounded pretty quickly from a whole-economy point of view (we still have a lot of weaknesses in terms of long-term unemployment, but that doesn't seem to be hurting our productivity much). Pick another time period, and you won't necessarily see the same matching path (and I would even say that those paths don't match particularly well). Marketwatch covered this for example; other sites show similar things. There is a weak correlation, but only in the short term, or for specific reasons.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f8847ee03e084d76b067e940cd6d7e1", "text": "\"It's standard to price oil in US$. That means that if the US$ gets stronger, the prices of oil drops even if its \"\"intrinsic value\"\" remains constant. Same thing happens for other commodities, such as gold. Think of the oil price in barrels/$. If the denominator (value of the $) goes up, then the ratio tends to go down.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "aa44f765e5a2f38704d6cc8e004c6e7c", "text": "Most of the gold prices at international markets are USD denominated. Hence the prices would be same in international markets where large players are buying and selling. However this does not mean that the prices to the individuals in local markets is same. The difference is due to multiple things like cost of physical delivery, warehousing, local taxation, conversion of Local currency to USD etc. So in essence the price of Gold is similar to price of Crude Oil. The price of Oil is more or less same on all the markets exchanges, though there is small difference this is because of the cost of delivery/shipment which is borne by the buyer. However the cost of Oil to retail individual varies from country to country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1067dd18b9d8b1ceff059de0557e2110", "text": "Just because pricing isn't tracked, doesn't mean the dollar price is not backed up by oil (they are others factors involved, of course). But the very fact that OPEC, the worlds largest oil cartel, currently only trade in dollars, effectively means that everyone who wants oil needs dollars to buy it. Therefore, to function in modern global economy, dollars are always needed regardless of exchange rates or interest rates on bonds. In reality the amount debt the US has backed up against its currency wouldn't hold for any other country, apart from US, with its petrodollar status.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "404f4c43c7313536978290ab8efe43b7", "text": "Yes, the US dollar is the standard for all global trade - IMF driven And China has been going for that title for the past decade and this is a very smart and tactical way to do it If this goes through, gold &amp; oil might become really good place to be. The US has been in a supply run and kept the price of oil low. Things are changing quick...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c5e4cc3f975021d306cac2f5730af64", "text": "It's very simple. Use USDSGD. Here's why: Presenting profits/losses in other currencies or denominations can be useful if you want to sketch out the profit/loss you made due to foreign currency exposure but depending on the audience of your app this may sometimes confuse people (like yourself).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad88c6e02a19df554b969904c287526", "text": "\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \"\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\"\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f96e863ce27aefa989aa3d5ec68fba9", "text": "\"Moving oil trade out of dollars into yuan will take right now between $600 billion and $800 billion worth of transactions out of the dollar… When this happens, the US dollar should drop to about 50% of it's current value and at that point, the US century will be over. What happens after that is anybodies guess but I expect that the US will have to either use it's military to shore up the dollar in exactly the same way they did when the invaded Iraq to prevent the sale of oil in Juan OR the US will blink and it's expensive military around the world will have to be clawed back. Simply put, the US will no longer be the world's policeman\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44c1a694da5c07c973e7e50b0180cf2c", "text": "According to your post, you bought seven shares of VBR at $119.28 each on August 23rd. You paid €711,35. Now, on August 25th, VBR is worth $120.83. So you have But you want to know what you have in EUR, not USD. So if I ask Google how much $845.81 is in EUR, it says €708,89. That's even lower than what you're seeing. It looks like USD has fallen in value relative to EUR. So while the stock price has increased in dollar terms, it has fallen in euro terms. As a result, the value that you would get in euros if you sold the stock has fallen from the price that you paid. Another way of thinking about this is that your price per share was €101,72 and is now €101,33. That's actually a small drop. When you buy and sell in a different currency that you don't actually want, you add the currency risk to your normal risk. Maybe that's what you want to do. Or maybe you would be better off sticking to euro-denominated investments. Usually you'd do dollar-denominated investments if some of your spending was in dollars. Then if the dollar goes up relative to the euro, your investment goes up with it. So you can cash out and make your purchases in dollars without adding extra money. If you make all your purchases in euros, I would normally recommend that you stick to euro-denominated investments. The underlying asset might be in the US, but your fund could still be in Europe and list in euros. That's not to say that you can't buy dollar-denominated investments with euros. Clearly you can. It's just that it adds currency risk to the other risks of the investment. Unless you deliberately want to bet that USD will rise relative to EUR, you might not want to do that. Note that USD may rise over the weekend and put you back in the black. For that matter, even if USD continues to fall relative to the EUR, the security might rise more than that. I have no opinion on the value of VBR. I don't actually know what that is, as it doesn't matter for the points I was making. I'm not saying to sell it immediately. I'm saying that you might prefer euro-denominated investments when you buy in the future. Again, unless you are taking this particular risk deliberately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ef7559df647b9ac76b8ec7d324bbb4e", "text": "NUGT and DUST both track GDX with triple leverage, but in opposite directions. GDX has been rising steadily throughout 2016, and certainly since over the last month. DUST experiences much higher volume when GDX is in a downward trend, as it was from 2013-2016. I think you'll see the same thing with DRIP and GUSH when oil has been moving steadily in one direction or the other. This is really a reflection of the herd mentality to jump in when things look like they're going a particular direction.", "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": "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": "69e213e1a561b292ef85f0c079ea6cb6", "text": "Russia main reserve is Euro, Gold and Yuan. They have dumped good sums of dollar since way back. The rest of oil buyers would gladly pay russians in whatever currency they want, specially if it is non dollar. Cheap oil on cheaper currency? Who doesn't want that? The chinese pay their oil in Yuan. Russian gladly takes Yuan, since its the most liquid currency in pacific, not to mention china is their no.1 trading partner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2cc941b0968432c9831c1847e2dd468", "text": "\"First of all, the answer to your question depends on your starting dates and ending dates. So developed markets returns are higher over one period, and emerging markets returns over other periods. So far, there does not appear to be a systematic tilt in favor of one or the other. The reasons are as you said. Emerging markets tend to have higher returns in nominal terms, but developed markets currency movements (sometimes) cancel this out. So watch out for periods of strong and weak developed markets (e.g. U.S) currencies. In \"\"strong\"\" currency periods (such as those of the past five years or so), you want U.S. market exposure, and in \"\"weak\"\" currency periods, the larger nominal local returns will be fully reflected in dollar terms as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "244082b525c3e0b52022e26c339e7810", "text": "\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data. The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange. For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled. Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades. Some data vendors also \"\"snapshot\"\" their feed at a particular point in time of the data. Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell. By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies. Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock. You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73f0f5884654654b0658b3caef2f0620", "text": "You will most likely not be able to avoid some form of format conversion, regardless of which data you use since there is, afaik, no standard for this data and everyone exports it differently. One viable option would be, like you said yourself, using the free data provided by Dukascopy. Please take into consideration that those are spot currency rates and will most likely not represent the rate at which physical and business-related exchange would have happened at this time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "369b54c7023ad44fe1764d78e1c1be63", "text": "To the best of my knowledge, Los Angeles County does not require a lawyer to be involved in a real-estate transaction. I looked through the County Recorder site and found no evidence that a lawyer is required. I live in a different county in California where a lawyer is also not required for real-estate transactions. Some counties do require a lawyer to be involved. That said, a purchase contract - is a contract. A legal document which you sign. A realtor may be able to help you understand the housing market pricing trends, but cannot (not allowed by law) draft the contract for you or advise to you on the clauses of the contract you're signing. Only a lawyer licensed in your State (California) is allowed to do that. So if you want a legal advice about the contract you're going to sign - you need to talk to a lawyer. Especially if you want a contract drafted for your own special needs, or have some specific titling requirements (for a company, or a trust - for example). Same goes for the mortgage contract and any other piece of paper you'll be signing during the closing meeting (and there will be plenty of such signatures). So it is not a question of need, it's a question of should.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
599367355d8e70d2ce307a9fc3537187
Adjusting a value for inflation each month using rolling 12-monthly inflation figures
[ { "docid": "40e6216fd5028fb210f768d5786defe2", "text": "In the style of the Bank of England's Inflation Calculator, you can do the calculation like so. The third column is an index made from the inflation figures and the forth column shows the inflation-adjusted values. Using the index to calculate the difference in costs, for example: The formulas used to produce the table above are shown below.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ab85fd6f741cf68b186595808edbb84", "text": "\"The actual increase in the cost of living for one month over the previous month cannot be calculated from the annualized increase in cost over the entire previous year. Consider the hypothetical case of a very stable economy, where prices stay constant for decades. Nevertheless, the authorities issue monthly statements, reporting that the change in the cost of living, for the last month, year over year, is 0.00%. Then they go back to sleep for another month. Then, something happens, say in August, 2001. It causes a permanent large increase in the cost of many parts of the cost of living components. So, in September, the authorities announce that the cost of living for the end of August, 2001, compared to August a year ago, was up 10%. Great consternation results. Politicians pontificate, unions agitate on behalf of their members, etc... The economy returns to its customary behavior, except for that one-time permanent increase from August, 2001. So for the next eleven months, each month, the authorities compare the previous months prices to the prices from exactly a year ago, and announce that inflation, year over year, is still 10%. Finally, we reach September, 2002. The authorities look at prices for the end of August, 2002, and compare them to the prices from the end of August, 2001 (post \"\"event\"\"). Wonder of wonders, the inflation rate is back to 0.00%!! Absolutely nothing happened in August 2002, yet the rate of inflation dropped from 10% to 0%.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "bee1b08bfad94bfa962c90eff9c6f1bc", "text": "The question lacks specificity, i.e. when does the initial investment occur, now or one period from now? If now then it is a perpetuity due. I will consider under 2 scenarios, A and B, relating to the size of the initial investment. A. Assuming that the initial investment (C_0) occurs now and each payment thereafter has the relationship (1+g) with this investment then the relevant base equation is that for the present value of a growing perpetuity due, expressed in terms of C_0, i.e. PVGPD= [C_0*(1+g)*(1+i)]/(i-g). Now, to suit the question asked, we can see that i=fixed rate of return (f) and g = expected inflation rate (e) such that we can rewrite the equation as PVGPD = [C_0*(1+e)*(1+i)]/(i-e]. We know that f = is a fixed nominal rate and must be adjusted for e to calculate the real rate (r) according to the equation f=(1+r)*(1+e)-1. Therefore PVGPD = [C_0*(1+e)(1+(1+r)(1+e)-1)]/((1+r)*(1+e)-1-e] Tidying up PVGPD = {C_0*(1+r)(1+e)^2}/[r(1+e)] PVGPD = [C_0*(1+r)*(1+e)]/r B. Assuming that the initial investment (X) is not equal to each subsequent perpetual payment (C_1) then the relevant base equation is that for the the initial investment plus the present value of a growing perpetuity, i.e. PVGP= X + [C_1/(i-g)] Rewriting PVGP = X + [C_1/(f-e)] Substituting PVGPD = X + {C_1/[(1+r)*(1+e)-1-e]} Tidying up PVGPD = X + C_1/[r*(1+e)]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a145b5ee9ce9c6ae6b82003ba3e842a", "text": "If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point. Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time. That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher. Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary. The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07c4b462447a984829ccd4f74b9b84a2", "text": "\"Everyone buys different kinds of goods. For example I don't smoke tobacco so I'm not affected by increased tobacco prices. I also don't have a car so I'm not affected by the reduced oil prices either. But my landlord increased the monthly fee of the apartment so my cost of living per month suddenly increased more than 10% relative to the same month a year before. This is well known, also by the statistical offices. As you say, the niveau of the rent is not only time- but also location specific, so there are separate rent indices (German: Mietspiegel). But also for the general consumer price indices at least in my country (Germany) statistics are kept for different categories of things as well. So, the German Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt) not only publishes \"\"the\"\" consumer price index for the standard consumer basket, but also consumer price indices for oil, gas, rents, food, public transport, ... Nowadays, they even have a web site where you can put in your personal weighting for these topics and look at \"\"your\"\" inflation: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Service/InteraktiveAnwendungen/InflationsrechnerSVG.svg Maybe something similar is available for your country?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d5a8298c41dbfe1d3ded257f82ae06b", "text": "The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "c6fa632a4fe912a3d78b7a6592e82079", "text": "\"I wrote a little program one time to try to do this. I think I wrote it in Python or something. The idea was to have a list of \"\"projected expenses\"\" where each one would have things like the amount, the date of the next transaction, the frequency of the transaction, and so on. The program would then simulate time, determining when the next transaction would be, updating balances, and so on. You can actually do a very similar thing with a spreadsheet where you basically have a list of expenses that you manually paste in for each month in advance. Simply keep a running balance of each row, and make sure you don't forget any transactions that should be happening. This works great for fixed expenses, or expenses that you know how much they are going to be for the next month. If you don't know, you can estimate, for instance you can make an educated guess at how much your electric bill will be the next month (if you haven't gotten the bill yet) and you can estimate how much you will spend on fuel based on reviewing previous months and some idea of whether your usage will differ in the next month. For variable expenses I would always err on the side of a larger amount than I expected to spend. It isn't going to be possible to budget to the exact penny unless you lead a very simple life, but the extra you allocate is important to cushion unexpected and unavoidable overruns. Once you have this done for expenses against your bank account, you can see what your \"\"low water mark\"\" is for the month, or whatever time period you project out to. If this is above your minimum, then you can see how much you can safely allocate to, e.g. paying off debt. Throwing a credit card into the mix can make things a bit more predictable in the current month, especially for unpredictable amounts, but it is a bit more complicated as now you have a second account that you have to track that has to get deducted from your first account when it becomes due in the following month. I am assuming a typical card where you have something like a 25 day grace period to pay without interest along with up to 30 days after the expense before the grace period starts, depending on the relationship between your cut-off date and when the actual expense occurs.\"", "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": "dcfb167b3a1e18a2fb2ee716b90a66c4", "text": "Here's a good inflation calculator based on official US government sources: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ You can get a good idea of the affect of productivity gains on prices by comparing price differences between different commodities. For example, eggs sold for $0.50-0.60/dozen in 1920, and are usually about $2.50/doz where I live. In real terms, the price actually declined from 1920 to 2010.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a70568de6258ac4ff20caf60647f630e", "text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e579c480f632018d2e79008cd1ccaa4b", "text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba2ffd3d9a2721b4e06f7c2d830e42d3", "text": "\"I was afraid of this. If you are using 12 P/Y and 12 C/Y, then your interest rate should not be divided by 12. Also, you should use \"\"END\"\" as this means monthly payments are made at the end of the month - a usual default.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f73c5e2421b687b44ad0d6913311ff7a", "text": "As an expansion on the correct answer: Consider a really boring economy. Nothing changes; wages and prices stay constant for years at a time. Every month the Consumer Price Index stays at 0%. Then, something catastrophic happens, say on July 31, 2000. A cheap local source for a vital resource runs out, and it must be obtained from a higher cost source. Floods cut internal road networks, resulting in higher transportation costs. Whatever. The new situation is permanent. As a result, the next month, August, 2000, prices go up 5%. That is, 5% higher than the previous month, July, 2000, and 5% higher than a year previously, August 1999. There is a lot of consternation, and politicians each promise that they and only they can wrestle inflation to the ground. But, when the figures for September, 2000 come out, inflation stays the same. Prices are the same as in August, 2000, and 5% higher than in September, 1999. This goes on for months. Nothing changes, prices stay the same, and the inflation rate, year over year, stays at 5%. Finally, the figures for August, 2001 come out. Wonder of wonders; prices are the same as in August, 2000, and inflation drops to zero. And the politicians all take the credit. Short version: inflation year over year changes either because of what in now included in the month just past, or what is now excluded from a year ago.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c548c8f369622eaa6e0093a5f0b5d4ea", "text": "\"There has been almost no inflation during 2014-2015. do you mean rental price inflation or overall inflation? Housing price and by extension rental price inflation is usually much higher than the \"\"basket of goods\"\" CPI or RPI numbers. The low levels of these two indicators are mostly caused by technology, oil and food price deflation (at least in the US, UK, and Europe) outweighing other inflation. My slightly biased (I've just moved to a new rental property) and entirely London-centric empirical evidence suggests that 5% is quite a low figure for house price inflation and therefore also rental inflation. Your landlord will also try to get as much for the property as he can so look around for similar properties and work out what a market rate might be (within tolerances of course) and negotiate based on that. For the new asked price I could get a similar apartment in similar condos with gym and pool (this one doesn't have anything) or in a way better area (closer to supermarkets, restaurants, etc). suggests that you have already started on this and that the landlord is trying to artificially inflate rents. If you can afford the extra 5% and these similar but better appointed places are at that price why not move? It sounds like the reason that you are looking to stay on in this apartment is either familiarity or loyalty to the landlord so it may be time to benefit from a move.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7cf50b1d08c74636ecff24bf8c02aa3", "text": "These are the steps I'd follow: $200 today times (1.04)^10 = Cost in year 10. The 6 deposits of $20 will be one time value calculation with a resulting year 7 final value. You then must apply 10% for 3 years (1.1)^3 to get the 10th year result. You now have the shortfall. Divide that by the same (1.1)^3 to shift the present value to start of year 7. (this step might confuse you?) You are left with a problem needing 3 same deposits, a known rate, and desired FV. Solve from there. (Also, welcome from quant.SE. This site doesn't support LATEX, so I edited the image above.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e898bbf75859f38482dd86f748db8f8c", "text": "\"Anyone who has any business looking at growth numbers will know thay are meaningless in the first year, So all they need to know is that it's the first year. It's no different than the Billboard music charts' treatment of the \"\"last week's chart ranking\"\" and \"\"movement up/down\"\" columns. It will help with visual layout if the figure used is about the same size as a percentage number. \"\"New\"\" fits nicely.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
526f497c5ea76468a4f4c78bd29e9b3e
Why would a bank take a lower all cash offer versus a higher offer via conventional lending?
[ { "docid": "993f127732c2a230ca27b60f7f4b927e", "text": "It's because financing can fall through, and then the time between offer and closing is wasted. Often buyers will include preapprovals and other evidence of financing eligibility with their offer for this reason.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c42356825e1930c1b9567f36ff43d5a3", "text": "One other point to consider is that cash offers often include no contingencies. That is, the offer comes in and if the seller signs then the deal is done, without any chance that the buyer backs out. As you can imagine, this is an attractive option in some situations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b74742b32b99f9bd32cd60cc84d3206f", "text": "\"Often the counter-party has obligations with respect to timelines as well -- if your buying a house, the seller probably is too, and may have a time-sensitive obligation to close on the deal. I'm that scenario, carrying the second mortgage may be enough to make that deal fall through or result in some other negative impact. Note that \"\"pre-approval\"\" means very little, banks can and do pass on deals, even if the buyer has a good payment history. That's especially true when the economy is not so hot -- bankers in 2011 are worried about not losing money... In 2006, they were worried about not making enough!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2254b39e5790220d2c9a52fce32b4daa", "text": "@OP: It's all about risk. With a cash buyer the decision is left up to one person. With a financed buyer it adds another approval process (the lender). It's another opportunity for the deal to fall through. If the bank is the lender then there's even more risk. They've already taken back the property once and incurred cost and they're setting themselves up to do it all over again. The discount price can depend on a lot of factors. Maybe it's a bad area and they need to get rid of it. Maybe the appraisals for the area are low because of foreclosures and they know it will be hard for a Buyer to get a loan. Lots of reasons as to what price they'd take. @Shawn: Every deal has contingencies unless it's a foreclosure bought at auction. Even if you are getting a steal from the bank in terms of price you're always going to have an inspection period. If a Buyer doesn't need an inspection then he will just go to an auction and buy a property for an even cheaper price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc869a65f4d468b2b752447d3f61113f", "text": "A bank selling a foreclosed property would negotiate a lower cash deal, I doubt it would be that extreme, 130 vs 100. An individual seller may give up $10K to save time and get his next home closed as well, but again, I suspect it would be rare to find that large a delta.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4fbdc6fb725647d5a2aa9ab359f388c", "text": "Also keep in mind that with an all-cash offer, they get their money now and not spread over X-many years, which means they can reinvest it now rather than piece meal across the term of whatever the loan would be. (Presuming the bank would be financing the house themselves.) Additionally, with an all-cash offer, there end to be fewer lawyers at the table, fewer parties total, so the process can generally proceed faster.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "c83cb56616d8571256d05b256e2b3475", "text": "The mortgages were pooled with other mortgages and sold off to other firms, in theory mitigating the risk. However, the reason lenders searched out these types of deals was because they could use the lack of credit rating etc as an excuse to charge much higher interest rates. Chase and most lenders made their money by borrowing their funds from some other institution and then lender it out to these borrowers so they were always looking for a large yield spread. Account Executives made more money on sub prime because everyone made more money on those deals. That is of course, until the pools hit a percentage rate of foreclosures, forcing a buy back of the pool. Then all of the small time players, like New Century went bust when their investors called them to buy the pools of mortgages back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dda689fe18a19bdbc9586d6aa371b21c", "text": "Capital requirements for a de novo bank, as opposed to an established one, are a real bitch. Basically the government wont let you loan nearly as much of your money out. You can't skirt this by buying an existing bank. Regulators don't want upstarts making stupid loans and thus encouraging lower credit criteria systemwide. Also Incumbents don't want more competition and they have lobbyists so I don't see this changing soon.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "868e0d42a9b2ef712f073f431628059d", "text": "I don't know that FHA loans have better rates than conventional loans. I've never heard that and some quick googling didn't yield anything (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you have the necessary down payment to get a conventional loan, I'm not sure I see any benefit for looking at FHA loans. I think the only benefit outside of a low down payment is the ability to (possibly) get a loan with a lower credit score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1c518e8ea450af1759d301a37bb17aa", "text": "This bit of marketing, like the zero-percent introductory rates some banks offer, is intended to make you more willing to carry a balance, and they're hoping you'll continue that bad habit after the rate goes back up. If you don't think you'll be tempted by the lower rate, yhere's no reason not to accept (unless there's something in the fine print that changes your agreement in other ways; read carefully). But as you say, there's no reason to accept ir either. I'd ignore it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d1d469cc51a072ff59814c81a1d8b36", "text": "The tight lending standards such as elimination of low-documentation and sub-prime mortgages and requirements for lower loan to value, contribute to keeping all but those with pristine credit and cash reserves out of the market. Some might consider this good for long term stability in the market. I just went through doing a 20% down mortgage plus had to have one year extra liquidity in reserve.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "096170c37df016df0c8c20d376a4258a", "text": "It is in the bank's interest to sell the property for as much as they can (although it is doubtful they will put as much effort/time into selling it as the owner might). They will certainly not sell it for $1. The main reason for this is that the bank would prefer to own $100k, than a loan to them from a customer for $100k. Banks have to discount the value of loans to take into account the likelihood of the loan not being repaid. They classify certain loans as riskier than others, and these are discounted more heavily. An unsecured home loan to a customer that has already defaulted, has no collateral, and now needs to pay rent AND loan repayments would count as an extremely risky loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6d66922dcd3d2189c4d20eef7cc9223", "text": "I've had all my account with the same bank for all my life. Generally, the disadvantage is that if I want some kind of product like a credit extension or a mortgage, I have the one bank to go to and if they don't want to help me I'm out of luck. However, occasionally there are also perks like the bank spontaneously offering you increased credit or even a whole line of credit. They can do this because they have your whole history and trust you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21f64d842f1eb7ad89242646cba6366d", "text": "Imagine the bank loaning 100% of the sum of money you needed to buy a house, if the valuation of the house decreases to 90% of the original price after 3 months, would it be unfair for them to ask them for 10% of the original price from you immediately? I suppose the rationale for loaning 80% is so that you will fork our 20% first, and so your property is protected from fluctuations in the market, that they do not need to collect additional money from you as your housing valuation rarely drops below 80% of the original price. Banks do need to make money too, as they run as a business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9a776d08c206dacd7cec3133072133", "text": "\"With (1), it's rather confusing as to where \"\"interest\"\" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18dd4413b7bca1d8c9e8b9184dc88942", "text": "You must consider the different levels of risk associated with each loan. When the bank loans you money, it does so based on a high degree of information about your financial situation (through your credit report + additional information gathered at the time of granting your request). It feels quite confident that you will repay them, and therefore considers you to be low risk. In order to make a profit off of all its low risk clients, the bank only needs to charge a small rate of interest - competitive with the market but enough to cover the losses from clients who will default. When you loan money through a peer-to-peer program, you are at two distinct disadvantages from the bank: (1) Your loan portfolio will not be diversified; that is, you may have only a single person or a small handful of people owing you money. Any catastrophic event in their lives may wipe out their loan to you. Whereas the bank can play the averages with a broader client base. (2) You have less information, and ultimately less (effective) power to reclaim your losses. Would you feel confident walking behind the desk at a bank today, and deciding whether to approve someone's loan based on the information that the bank's back-end has already determined is necessary to make that decision? Now how about when you are doing it on your own? Because of this, you take on more risk from a peer-to-peer loan than a bank takes on from you. That's why the person is willing (or, required due to market availability) to pay a higher rate; they know they are higher risk. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea, just that there is a specific reason that the difference in rates exists, and it implies that you should consider carefully whether the risks outweigh the benefits. Note that the concept of taking a buy/sell position on two theoretically identical assets while earning a net profit at no risk is known as 'arbitrage'. Arbitrage situations rarely exist, and never for long. Whenever you see a position that appears to be arbitrage, consider what might make it not so. ie: you could buy inventory in location A, and sell it at 10% higher margin in location B - but have you considered transportation, carrying costs, and interest for the period that you physically held the inventory? The appearance of arbitrage may (in my opinion) be a sign that you have incomplete information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a700d981d7b7f554ebfc2ae104ebd4f2", "text": "\"As RonJohn points out, direct deposit is something very different. What's going on here is that they are trying to exclude the \"\"customers\"\" that open the account simply for the premium and then close it again as soon as the terms of the offer have been met. Most people have only one regular source of direct deposit money, either their paycheck or a retirement check. This acts to make it hard for them to simply take the offer and run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "766fd3959c0bc333c6d1b38ca1f96812", "text": "\"All cash deals basically mean that the acquiring company isn't going to offer you shares in itself, but only the cash equivalent. Mechanically, the acquiring company will find out who the shareholders are, then use electronic means to send money to the shareholders of the target company through their brokerage accounts (slightly oversimplifying here but it's the essence). As you've pointed out, using physical cash is impractical - they would have to send these amounts of cash to each shareholder of WFM, who will easily number in the tens or hundreds of thousands. As for AMZN, how it raises this amount of cash is not addressed when we say the deal is \"\"all cash\"\". Essentially, it's AMZN's problem to figure out where to get this cash, be it through internal operations, bank borrowings, or issuing new equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d230a2d06ba1335477e38e1e5697000", "text": "Banks consider investment mortgages (and any mortgage where you don't live in the property), as a riskier investment than an owner occupied, home collateral mortgage. The sources of increased risk range from concerns that you will screw up as a landlord, your tenants will destroy the place, you won't have tenants and can't afford to pay the bank, and/or you'll take out several other investment mortgages and over extend yourself. All of these risks are compounded by the fact that it is harder for the bank to convince you to pay when they can't put you out on the street if you default. Banks lend and invest in money, not real estate, so they would much rather have a paying loan than a foreclosed house, especially with the modern foreclosure glut. The increased risk means the bank will charge higher interest for the loan, may require a higher downpayment, and will require higher lending standards before issuing the loan. A new housing investor can get around these higher prices by living in the home for a few years before renting it out (though your lender could possibly require you to renegotiate the loan if you move out too soon).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c69d09b34eabd583b8c1df493606605c", "text": "Assuming that the financial system broke down, not enough supply of essential commodities or food but there is political and administrative stability and no such chaos that threatens your life by physical attacks. The best investment would then be some paddy fields, land, some cows, chickens and enough clothing , a safe house to stay and a healthy life style that enables you to work for food and some virtue at heart and management skills to get people work for you on your resources so that they can survive with you (may be you earn some profit -that is up to your moral standards to decide, how much). It all begins to start again; a new Financial System has to be in place….!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef6251beb395b3ce7201d8f108e1c6cc", "text": "Whether applying for a job or buying a house, Offer a more specific price like $72,500, which tells them you thought hard about the price. $70K is too 'round' of a number. Additionally, your financial ability/condition can be a factor too. If you have 20% down, and your Realtor assures the seller that your transaction will go down without a hitch, and you'll be approved for a mortgage, they may accept your offer of $72,500 over the other guys $78K offer if [s]he has less desirable finances. Good Luck!", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
76680ef92dfc257747f1440e339e5bf9
Upward Spike in US Treasuries despite S&P Downgrade in August 2011
[ { "docid": "e35d9bac3a2820b0e39181db4f9718ec", "text": "The only resources or references you need are a chart showing you what happened in those months. The exuberance for US treasuries comes from the fact that there are no better options than them for putting cash. There are better sovereign debt instruments around the world depending on your goals, but they do not offer the same liquidity. US dollars and US Treasuries are equivalents in this context, so no matter if the wealthy speculator removed their cash from the stock market and put it in a bank or directly bought US treasuries (or their futures), this would increase the demand for treasuries. S&P Downgraded US treasures due to political instability in the United States, since inefficiencies in the country's political structure can prevent the Treasury from paying treasury holders (aka a default). Speculators know that this doesn't effect the United States resources and revenue collection schemes, as there is ample wealth public and private available to back the treasury bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cbde01cf5e466b8f1a6ee6fca714dfb", "text": "US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "36972b22967fcffdfc75b52853522acf", "text": "Too expand on /u/stoneeus, mortgage rates were/are also heavily influenced by the FED QE program, which holds about $4.5T in mortgage-backed securities and treasuries on the FED's balance sheet. The FED has been holding this balance steady since it ended the QE program a couple years ago, purchasing new securities as old ones mature. However, the FED has started signalling that they are going to end these purchases and let their portfolio wind down. Once that happens, you'll start to see mortgage rates rise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5596b89a7503739bfe1ed3ba97b4b993", "text": "Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d5900f07a22f9469a20c83d55e0302f", "text": "Your quote from the CBO is talking about a actual subsidy. As stated, there was a cash value difference between what the Treasury purchased troubled assets from banks at and what the market value of those securities were. This (the point mentioned in the article) is not an actual subsidy. As a counter argument to your first paragraph, look at Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.", "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": "9c52167af80856de1ae5995c89bb1e1d", "text": "\"This is a speculative question and there's no \"\"correct\"\" answer, but there are definitely some highly likely outcomes. Let's assume that the United States defaults on it's debt. It can be guaranteed that it will lose its AAA rating. Although we don't know what it will drop to, we know it WILL be AA or lower. A triple-A rating implies that the issuer will never default, so it can offer lower rates since there is a guarantee of safety there.People will demand a higher yield for the lower perceived security, so treasury yield will go up. The US dollar, or at least forex rates, will almost certainly fall. Since US treasuries will no longer be a safe haven, the dollar will no longer be the safe currency it once was, and so the dollar will fall. The US stock market (and international markets) will also have a strong fall because so many institutions, financial or otherwise, invest in treasuries so when treasuries tumble and the US loses triple-A, investments will be hurt and the tendency is for investors to overreact so it is almost guaranteed that the market will drop sharply. Financial stocks and companies that invest in treasuries will be hurt the most. A notable exception is nations themselves. For example, China holds over $1 trillion in treasuries and a US default will hurt their value, but the Yuan will also appreciate with respect to the dollar. Thus, other nations will benefit and be hurt from a US default. Now many people expect a double-dip recession - worse than the 08/09 crisis - if the US defaults. I count myself a member of this crowd. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty whether or not there will be another recession or even a depression - we can only say that a recession is a strong possibility. So basically, let's pray that Washington gets its act together and raises the ceiling, or else we're in for bad times. And lastly, a funny quote :) I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. - Warren Buffett\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccf3cfb9666a458cc7a5f694e8138135", "text": "[Japan] had been for some time, but during the recession, China went strongly for US debt as a hedge against a depression occurring. Now that the world economy is rebounding, China can get a bit more aggressive and will probably back off on treasuries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38aa011258eb268a60e1affa22392333", "text": "No. If you have to ignore a price spike, obviously its value is not constant. Gold is a commodity, just like every other commodity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "682b9e5c188daf75f671e05c6215d32c", "text": "In regards to your title, it's based on product. Rates based products had a late 2016 early 2017 run. It's now summer time and the fed is acting as expected. Clients have already positioned themselves going into the slow season. Distressed bonds and HY loans are still moving. After the latest fed increase and the yield curve flattening, HY loans took a hit. Par loans were trading at a discount. The market has moved back to paying a premium. However, HY bonds have been slowing down since June. New issue has dropped off, and equities have slowed as well. It's summer time. I wouldn't say that traders have it tough as the tittle suggests, it's just that it was a very active first quarter and now volatility has subsided. It's just the quiet season.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2732e9c4c38806c0e89bb2edd6272924", "text": "Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b5482cbff8fcd2891bf54fedfd90023", "text": "The math that works at the nation-scale doesn't work the same for an individual or even smaller companies (even though larger companies actually dwarf many whole *countries*). So while US Treasuries are a good investment for many foreign governments, that isn't universally true for all investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a22ef484a4de1dc8991ea87a4a86c9fd", "text": "\"The difference between me and Uncle Sam is that Uncle Sam gets the lowest interest rates in the world. If I could borrow money at 1.7% for 10 years you bet your ass I'd do it! Also, the notion that \"\"Uncle Sam is running out of people to borrow from, and is having trouble paying those loans back (and the interest)\"\" is just false. US treasuries are the most sought after debt in the world. If anyone had any doubt uncle sam would pay them back, interest rates would be skyrocketing, not at historic lows. After that quote I turned it off, about two minutes in. This is just more FUD designed to get you to buy gold or whatever. Ignore it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52ef53da2268a37f8563da3280b54011", "text": "Many of the major indices retreated today because of this news. Why? How do the rising budget deficits and debt relate to the stock markets? The major reason for the market retreating is the uncertainty regarding the US Dollar. If the US credit rating drops that will have an inflationary effect on the currency (as it will push up the cost of US Treasuries and reduce confidence in the USD). If this continues the loss of USD confidence could bring an end to the USD as the world's reserve currency which could also create inflation (as world banks could reduce their USD reserves). This can make US assets appear overvalued. Why is there such a large emphasis on the S&P rating? S&P is a large trusted rating agency so the market will respond to their analysis much like how a bank would respond to any change in your rating by Transunion (Consumer Credit Bureau) Does this have any major implications for the US stock markets today, in the short term and in July? If you are a day-trader I'm sure it does. There will be minor fluctuations in the market as soon as news comes out (either of its extension or any expected delays in passing that extension). What happens when the debt ceiling is reached? Since the US is in a deficit spending situation it needs to borrow more to satisfy its existing obligations (in short it pays its debt with more debt). As a result, if the debt ceiling isn't raised then eventually the US will be unable to pay its existing obligations. We would be in a default situation which could have devastating affects on the value of the USD. How hard the hit will depend on how long the default situation lasts (the longer we go without an increased ceiling after the exhaustion point the more we default on). In reality, Congress will approve a raise, but they will drag it out to the last possible minute. They want to appear as if they are against it, but they understand the catastrophic effects of not doing so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fd0e843fca80da2dcfa715ff3d71960", "text": "The US Treasury is not directly/transactionally involved, but can affect the junk bond market by issuing new bonds when rates rise. Since US bonds are considered completely safe, changes in yield will affect low quality debt. For example, if rates rose to levels like 1980, a 12% treasury bond would drive the prices of junk bonds issued today dramatically lower. Another price factor is likelihood of default. Companies with junk credit ratings have lousy balance sheets, so negative economic conditions or tight short term debt markets can result in default for many of these companies. Whether bonds in a fund are new issues or purchased on the secondary market isn't something that is very relevant to the individual investor. The current interest rate environment is factored into the market already via prices of bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb27312cdf3703a383fa28960ac1908a", "text": "This directly relates to the ideas behind the yield curve. For a detailed explanation of the yield curve, see the linked answer that Joe and I wrote; in short, the yield curve is a plot of the yield on Treasury securities against their maturities. If short-term Treasuries are paying higher yields than long-term debt, the yield curve has a negative slope. There are a lot of factors that could cause the yield curve to become negatively sloped, or at least less steep, but in this case, oil prices and the effective federal funds rate may have played a significant role. I'll quote from the section of the linked answer that describes the effect of oil prices first: a rise in oil prices may increase expectations of short-term inflation, so investors demand higher interest rates on short-term debt. Because long-term inflation expectations are governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term swings in commodity prices, long-term expectations may not rise nearly as much as short term expectations, which leads to a yield curve that is becoming less steep or even negatively sloped. As the graph shows, oil prices increased dramatically, so this increase may have increased expectations of short-term inflation expectations substantially. The other answer describes an easing of monetary policy, e.g. a decrease in the effective federal funds rate (FFR), as a factor that could increase the slope of the yield curve. However, a tightening of monetary policy, e.g. an increase in the FFR, could decrease the slope of the yield curve because a higher FFR leads investors to demand a higher rate of return on shorter-term securities. Longer-term Treasuries aren't as affected by short-term monetary policy, so when short-term yields increase more than long-term yields, the yield curve becomes less steep and/or negatively sloped. The second graph shows the effective federal funds rate for the period in question, and once again, the increase is significant. Finally, look at a graph of inflation for the relevant period. Intuitively, the steady increase in inflation from 1975 onward may have increased investors expectations of short-term inflation, therefore increasing short-term yields more than long-term yields (as described above and in the other answer). These reasons aren't set in stone, and just looking at graphs isn't a substitute for an actual analysis of the data, but logically, it seems plausible that the positive shock to oil prices, increases in the effective federal funds rate, and increases in inflation and expectations of inflation contributed at least partially to the inversion of the yield curve. Keep in mind that these factors are all interconnected as well, so the situation is certainly more complex. If you approve of this answer, be sure to vote up the other answer about the yield curve too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c4877759badd49c65120dde596c39fc", "text": "The people who bought when interest rates were higher, do they get anything out of it? The present value just went up of their Bonds just went up, but it probably evened out to the 3% they were going to get right? Do they make more money selling the bond now, or holding on to it till maturity in PV terms?", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
4a988cb18d6ce701dd8a5bb9d05ca6ce
Why does quantitative easing negatively affect stocks?
[ { "docid": "993793d6dcee694fa8034a12ea35d61e", "text": "Can you isolate the market impact to just the Fed's quantitative easing? Can you rule out the future economic predictions of low growth and that there are reasons why the Fed has kept rates low and is trying its best to stimulate the economy? Just something to consider here. The key is to understand what is the greater picture here as well as the question of which stock market index are you looking at that has done so badly. Some stocks may be down and others may be up so it isn't necessarily bad for all equally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "729c5aedd5093e6ba46e0c0a70f6ab49", "text": "The stock market in general likes monetary easing. With lower interest rates and easy cheap money freely available, companies can borrow at reduced cost thus improving profits. As profits increase share prices generally follow. So as John Benson said Quantitative Easing usually has a positive effect on stocks. The recent negativity in the stock markets was partly due to the possibility of QE ending and interest rates being raised in the future.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "935cd924ed52f16c8409aaec99f643b2", "text": "Not really my field but this is how I see the impact Disadvantages for banks : not being able to chose where they park assets/cash they have been trusted with which mean lower income from investing those disadvantage for banks shareholders : less earnings disadvantage for the economy : harder criteria to lend, lower loan growth advantage for the economy : (theoretically) less risks of liquidity crunch and financial crisis", "title": "" }, { "docid": "233ea902448875e6343af9b6290c5305", "text": "Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive, which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns. For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc. This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1de24d75080643ec1433ec639cffd061", "text": "The severity of wealth inequality- more so than its existence- is what I'm getting at when I talk about the Fed. The cantillon effect is a theory that essentially states that the first recipients of stimulus are far better off than those 2 or 3 degrees of separation later. So if you look at Fed policies, where monetary stimulus is directed only towards the financial system and credit markets, certain parties will benefit disproportionately first before others later. In this case, that would be those employed by the industry (bankers, investors, etc), institutions in that industry (banks, hedge funds, pension/mutual funds), and owners of securities (the wealthy). Spillover effects impact the stock market, real estate, art, etc. and they are not a result of fundamentals, but rather of mis-allocated capital. What I'm getting at is we don't need central planners (i.e. the Fed) to make decisions regarding the market for money - interest rates - or pursue dubious financial experiments at best to somehow fix problems that they themselves caused in the past (through extended low interest rate environments). Central banking could take a very serious hit if cryptocurrencies become mainstream- which I do not expect for a long time- but it's the best emergent challenger to the existing paradigm.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8953063491a0162c87cdf123213b6f1a", "text": "I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions. When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe9921a7843fe5fe58cfc9155f83a271", "text": "\"Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets. This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve. As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them. This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return. Sooner or later, \"\"the trade\"\" becomes \"\"crowded\"\". Eventually, large amounts of money try to \"\"exit the trade\"\" (into cash or the next discovered asset). And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99a35d8a21693b605106176989414fed", "text": "This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0c0d39f8df8c4b635315554a55d549e", "text": "\"Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best. Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just \"\"income fund\"\" then they can do whatever in that space.\"", "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": "32f15a8afc23a2b007d6f89f30eef936", "text": "\"Right, as I stated I agree that it will cause greater variance from the true intrinsic value for individual equities. To take this example to an extreme, traders can throw darts at a board of ticker symbols, purchase them, and still diversify away most firm specific risk. You're correct in stating that such a strategy will eventually cause systematic market failures if everyone does it, but the herd goes where they can make the most profit, and right now that is with ETFs. When fund managers prove they have foresight enough to exploit any systematic failures that this causes, or can start beating ETF returns, the herd will flock back to them. I only meant to point out the reasoning behind why this is happening, not advocating one over the other, and also to point out that Paul Singer shouldn't whine. To re-purpose an old saying, \"\"Don't get mad, get even (by making your investors rich).\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1c0b5404ada37840f0298a7d05c7c80", "text": "My view is that hedge funds and high-frequency traders tend to create this correlation because they're making directional bets on individual stocks, grouped as a whole, and then share these ideas with so many other funds (who, in turn, do the same thing). I think Beta and inflated share prices are related to this effect, but are not the cause of this effect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1688c0affff288ef6402d045731b746", "text": "The answer would depend on the equities held. Some can weather inflation better than others (such as companies that have solid dividend growth) and even outpace inflation. Some industries are also safer against inflation than others, such as consumer staples and utilities since people usually have to purchase these regardless of how much $ they have. In looking over the data comparing S&P 500 returns, dividends, and inflation, the results are all over the map. In the 50's the total return was 19.3% with inflation at 2.2%. Then in the 70's returns were 5.8% with inflation at 7.4 percent, leading one to think that inflation diminished returns. But then in the 80's inflation was 5.1%, yet the return on the S&P was up to 17.3% Either way, aside from the 70's every other decade since 1950 has outpaced inflation (as long as you are including dividends; hence my first paragraph). S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns Also, the 7% average stock appreciation you mention is just that, an average. You are comparing a year-over-year number (7% inflation) with an aggregated one (stock performance over x number of years) and that is a misrepresentation and is not being weighted for the difference in what those numbers mean. Finally, there are thousands of things that have an effect on the stock market and stocks. Some are controllable and others are not. The idea that any one of them, such as inflation, has any sort of long-term, everlasting effect on prices that they cannot outmaneuver is improbable. This is where researching your stocks comes in...and if done prudently, who cares what the inflation rate is?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a07a5f80321b3163b20fe5c79bd464ed", "text": "I don't think that's the case. I mean, of course some of the new money supply is making it into the stock market, but I think it's because of the factors I listed. The money supply isn't growing faster now than it has in the past. Here is M2 since 1980 on a log scale (because a percent change is more relevant than a change in raw dollars, just like stock market returns). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxeb (I am using M2 because it's a more complete measure of liquidity) Here is the percent change over time in M2, just to show that the QE isn't really doing anything out of the ordinary. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxek Here you can see the inflation rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxes What quantitative easing has done is drive bond prices lower, which I already mentioned. It can also be argued that QE has expanded wealth inequality, but I already mentioned that as well. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2015/06/25/how-federal-reserve-quantitative-easing-expanded-wealth-inequality/#1f7528a321eb", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c82877a4d1d2abf54cc72ef42d48358", "text": "Although I have tried to read as much as I can about whether HFT is good or bad for the market, I am not an expert and I am not very confident in my own opinion. Nevertheless, here's my take: Let's say a pension plan buys a huge block of stock all at once and the market price moves against it. That's what is supposed to happen, and has always happened. HFT are able to offer tight spreads largely because they get picked off less then the market makers in earlier eras. I don't see that as HFT exploiting pension plans, I see it as them preventing themselves from being exploited. I will acknowledge that some HFT shops have been caught doing actual market manipulation, but I believe that the vast majority of what they do is provide market making for cheaper than its ever been. FWIW the SEC [mostly agrees](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-05/sec-will-keep-thinking-about-high-frequency-trading) with me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d597d62750eca680f64b993c1ceebf3", "text": "Some economist please ELI5 what I’m missing here. In the equities market, it is considered an economic benefit when exchanges settle trades in smaller increments. When we went from eighths to decimal, for example. How is that direction into smaller divisible units different from facilitating trade with pennies for economic goods?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa55c3cb435280518b78c56250134b53", "text": "QE is really interesting. I don't think there were ever any negative repercussions. We basically found a way to print money and use it in a way that doesn't cause massive inflation (i.e. Swapping assets out for cash, resulting in zero net value added into the economy). Is it ridiculous to assume we will just do this everytime there's a massive toxic asset bust?", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
a542e41b4249222d9fd841bbfddb3eec
Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield?
[ { "docid": "23ddebd118921642b4fde7d7b52a8693", "text": "It would be preferable to purchase a bond with a negative yield if the negative yield was the smallest compared to similar financial securities. The purchase or sale of a security is rarely a mutually exclusive event. An individual may have personal reasons or a desire to contribute to the activity the bond is financing. To an entity, the negative yield bond may be part of a cost averaging plan, diversification strategy, a single leg of a multi-leg transaction, or possibly to aid certainty as a hedge in a pairs trade. And of course there may be other unique situations specific to the entity. Said another way, is the Queen of Spades a good card? It depends on the game being played and what is in your hand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48c01e8025f37a2255ffd3c048d8b06a", "text": "Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400 million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100 million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a 15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34665581461e0a8d5d33457ae25d7895", "text": "The question in my view is going into Opinion and economics. Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield? I guess you have answered yourself; Although the second point is more relevant for high net worth individual or large financial institutions / Governments where preserving cash is an important consideration. Currently quite a few Govt Bonds are in negative as most Govt want to encourage spending in an effort to revive economy.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "14a36d998327e07c3acbbdcfcdb766fe", "text": "\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88eb05212e390eb6b77372ec51fdc3ee", "text": "\"Even though the article doesn't actually use the word \"\"discount\"\", I think the corresponding word you are looking for is \"\"premium\"\". The words are used quite frequently even outside of the context of negative rates. In general, bonds are issued with coupons close to the prevailing level of interest rates, i.e. their price is close to par (100 dollar price). Suppose yields go up the next day, then the price moves inversely to yields, and that bond will now trade at a \"\"discount to par\"\" (less than 100 dollar price). And vice versa, if yields went down, prices go up, and the bond is now at a \"\"premium to par\"\" (greater than 100 dollar price)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e03ffaa92d15930d884ee78fd0f02558", "text": "Those are the expected yields; they are not guaranteed. This was actually the bread and butter of Graham Newman, mispriced bonds. Graham's writings in the Buffett recommended edition of Securities Analysis are invaluable to bond valuation. The highest yielder now is a private subsidiary of Société Générale. A lack of financial statements availability and the fact that this is the US derivatives markets subsidiary are probably the cause of the higher rates. The cost is about a million USD to buy them. The rest will be similar cases, but Graham's approach could find a diamond; however, bonds are big ticket items, so one should expect to pay many hundreds of thousands of USD per trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f04c95fbe25c806a926f738494f09406", "text": "\"It makes sense if the NPV is positive. But what rate should you use at determining the NPV? A textbook might say \"\"market rate\"\".... and by definition the market rate to use in bond calculations like yours will mean that your NPV will be zero. How can this be? Well it's a bit of a circular definition. You take less capital to earn a higher return. The value of your capital spread over the period of the bond's maturity is the net difference... but the money in your pocket from selling the bond and not purchasing also has value. Banks and traders do this exact swap every day, many many times. The rate at which you can execute this swap is what defines the market rate. Therefore, by definition, the NPV will be zero. Now, this doesn't mean it's a bad idea for you. You can, on your own accord, decide the value you place on the capital versus the yield and make the decision. Do you expect rates to rise or fall? Do you expect higher or lower inflation? In reality you can form whatever opinion you like for your own circumstance, but the market is the net aggregation of formative opinion. You only get to decide whether or not you agree with the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a098f01bc8fa47e3f9160a018b52c89b", "text": "There are a few other factors possible here: Taxes - Something you don't mention is what are the tax rates on each of those choices. If the 4% gain is taxed at 33% while the 3% government bond is taxed at 0% then it may well make more sense to have the government bond that makes more money after taxes. Potential changes in rates - Could that 4% rate change at any time? Yield curves are an idea here to consider where at times they can become inverted where short-term bonds yield more than long-term bonds due to expectations about rates. Some banks may advertise a special rate for a limited time to try to get more deposits and then change the rate later. Beware the fine print. Could the bond have some kind of extra feature on it? For example, in the US there are bonds known as TIPS that while the interest rate may be low, there is a principal adjustment that comes as part of the inflation adjustment that is part how the security is structured.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe87a107006a1c915292432f35ec1d5c", "text": "Virtually zero risk of default; safety; diversification; guaranteed fixed income albeit very low; portfolio diversifier so it reduces total volatility; plus yields might drop even lower thus increasing the price of the bond. Very unlikely given how obscenely low yields already are but still possible. I thought nobody would ever buy a 10yr @ 3% and now look, rates are almost half as much and those 3% bonds are worth a lot more now on the secondary market. Timing the bond market is really hard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a6ecc93aaeca700b59696c9e2c3c3d8", "text": "As well as credit risk there's also interest risk. If a bond has a face value of $100, pays 1% and matures in 20 years' time then you expect to receive a total of $120 from buying it now -- $1 per year for 20 years and $100 at the end. But if you can get a 3% return elsewhere, then if you invest your $80 there instead you will get $2.40 per year for 20 years and then $80 at the end, making a total of $128 (and you also get more of the money sooner). So even $80 for the $100 bond is a bad buy, and you should invest elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de4312884f19663ad7e0d0e07b86898f", "text": "You're talking about floating rate loans. It's so that the bond is marked back to market every 90 days. Any more often would be a hassle to deal with for everyone involved, any less often and they would be significant variance from LIBOR vs. the loan's specific rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25642445db62867fabedea609cea9f71", "text": "Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons: return on principal, or return of principal. The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise. The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless. Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fafdfc536de79a7ae3d9e9234c7c5d3", "text": "Ponder this. Suppose that a reputable company or government were to come out and say hey, we are going to issue some 10 year bonds at 6.4%. Anyone interested in buying some? Assume that the company or government is financially solid and there is zero chance that they will go bankrupt. Think those bonds would sell? Would you be interested in buying such a bond? Well, I would wager that these bonds would sell like hotcakes, despite the fact that the long term stock market return beats it by a half percent. Heck, vanguard's junk bond fund is hot right now. It only yields 4.9% and those are junk bonds, not rock solid companies (see vanguard high yield corporate bond fund) Every time you make an extra principal payment on your student loan, you are effectively purchasing a investment with a rock solid, guaranteed 6.4% return for 10 years (or whatever time you have left on the loan if make no extra payments). On top of that, paying off a loan early builds your credit reputation, improves your monthly cash flow once the loan is paid, may increase your purchasing power for a house or car, and if nothing else, it frees you from being a slave to that debt payment every month. Edit Improved wording based on Ross's comment", "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": "ecfa6bb9c8b37781cfa02cab7521ce22", "text": "Negative coupons are not the same as a negative yield. A $1000 bond that you purchase, at a premium, for $2100 that produces 10 annual coupons of $100 and a redemption of $1000 has a real, positive coupon ($100). The holder of the bond gets this coupon, and the maturity value However, you get back less than your initial investment. There is no growth; the original investment shrinks, or has a negative growth rate. Most mortgage or bond calculators choke on this situation...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a215235050247865d3e2f2c75a3b8eb", "text": "From my blog's discussion on 2017 tax rates. This is the final set of numbers. So, if you currently have, say $120K taxable income, every dollar above that starts getting taxed at 25%, until $153K, then 28%. In other words, forecast your taxes based on the day job, but then the 1099 goes on top of that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972cce8568cc0e5fb62e7e6a4a2e76a8", "text": "The fact that the option is deep in the money will be reflected in the market price of the option so you can just sell it at a profit. If there's a (n almost) guaranteed profit to be had, however, you can always find someone who will lend you the money to cover the exercise... they'll charge you interest, however!", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
f0b9dceb6f4c560fe6b6c2c9e223fc01
Should I pay off my student loan before buying a house?
[ { "docid": "9cb0f6c838269bfc3c64b6fc3bc121c0", "text": "Paying off your student loan before buying a house is certainly a great risk reduction move for you. It will lower your debt to income ratio allowing your mortgage approval to go easier and it will free up more of your dollars to pay for the many miscellaneous projects that come with buying a house. I think that if you are considering paying off your student loan before buying a house that means that your student loans are an amount you can fathom paying off and that you are motivated to be rid of your student loan debt. Go for it and pay off your student loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c4552d9a151aba8324f246f5b6d05e0", "text": "It depends on the terms. Student loans are often very low interest loans which allow you to spread your costs of education over a long time without incurring too much interest. They are often government subsidized. On the other hand, you often get better mortgage rates if you can bring a down payment for the house. Therefore, it might be more beneficial for you to use money for a down payment than paying off the student load.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94be5f3d5cab78067d6b98a9936ae9c7", "text": "There may be specific answers that can be determined based on the interest rates, amounts, tax provisions, etc. But I'm here to tell you... It is much easier (i.e., less stressful) to own a home when you have less debt. Pay off any and every debt you can before purchasing a home because there will always be something requiring you to spend money once you own one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d0d5a349ea3ab744085df42a4a35759", "text": "It might be a good idea, because later in life if a large expense shows up or an income source disappears, you will only have the mortgage payment, rather than a mortgage AND a student loan payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b35b8287eb0a1f8cad71238509d3ee0c", "text": "One extremely important aspect that must be taken into consideration is the state of the housing market. If prices are rising it will probably be a false economy to delay your house purchase. Say you pay off a £5,000 student loan, thus delaying your house purchase another year you could well end up forking out an extra £10,000 on the mortgage due to the rise in house prices. Of course, if the housing market is falling then, without a doubt, pay off the student debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6de6830ca2a32ae3fda25b350ee7088c", "text": "IMO student loans are junk debt that should be dealt with as soon as possible. Buying a house comes with risks and expenses (repairs, maintenance, etc) and dealing with a student loan at the same time just makes it tougher. Personally, I would try to pay off at least a few of the loans first.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "8bf4ac7a8a2c2e17452db55d4558d105", "text": "The hard and fast rule is to pay off high interest loans first, but each individual's situation is different so there are some things to consider. Student loan interest is tax deductible up to $2,500. Will your student loan interest exceed $2,500 for the year? If so I would try to pay down the student loan first to bring down the total interest for the year so that you get as much interest back as possible on your tax return. Also, it may be beneficial to pay off the car first to close that account so that you are only left with the 1 loan. Once you have the car loan payment out of the way you can dedicate that amount to paying off the student loan. I'm in almost the same situation as you. I currently have a mortgage and car payment. In 6 months my grace period will be over, and my student loan payments will start. I have $100k in student loan debt. So I will have a $1,100 mortgage payment, $1,100 student loan payment, and $700 car payment (car loan is 0%). I don't want to have 3 loans active so I will pay off my car loan in a 2-3 months to get that out of the way. Then I will pay down my student loan by paying $700 extra every month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00484e8e9c8d6d544eb2c3b16a4e22a2", "text": "It isn't always clear cut that you should pay off a debt at all, particularly a mortgage. In simple terms, if you are making a better return than what the bank is charging you, and the investment meets your risk criteria, then you should not pay back the debt. In the UK for example, mortgage rates are currently quite low. Around 2.5 - 3% is typical at the moment. On the other hand, you might reasonably expect a long run average return of around 9 - 11% on property (3 - 5% rental yield, and the rest on capital gains). To make the decision properly you need take into account the following:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbb1a5aaa7bc8c7f62db10fa77815473", "text": "Based on your numbers, it sounds like you've got 12 years left in the private student loan, which just seems to be an annoyance to me. You have the cash to pay it off, but that may not be the optimal solution. You've got $85k in cash! That's way too much. So your options are: -Invest 40k -Pay 2.25% loan off -Prepay mortgage 40k Play around with this link: mortgage calculator Paying the student loan, and applying the $315 to the monthly mortgage reduces your mortgage by 8 years. It also reduces the nag factor of the student loan. Prepaying the mortgage (one time) reduces it by 6 years. (But, that reduces the total cost of the mortgage over it's lifetime the most) Prepaying the mortgage and re-amortizing it over thirty years (at the same rate) reduces your mortgage payment by $210, which you could apply to the student loan, but you'd need to come up with an extra $105 a month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cc449161a017138e7d63961ad07a965", "text": "Should I use the money to pay off student loans and future grad expenses for me? Yes. The main drawback to student loans is that they cannot be gotten rid of except by paying them off (other than extreme circumstances such as death or complete disability). A mortgage, car loan, or other collateralized loans can be dealt with by selling the underlying collateral. Credit card loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. Stop borrowing for college, pay for it in cash, then decide what to do with the rest. Make sure you have a comfortable amount saved for emergencies in a completely liquid account (not a retirement account or CDs), and continue to pay off with the rest. You might also consider putting some away for your kids' college, so I want to get my older son into a private middle school for 2 years. They have a hardy endowment and may offer us a decent need based scholarship if we look worthy on paper I have a hard time getting behind this plan with a 238K mortgage. If you want to apply for scholarships that's great - but don't finagle your finances to look like you're poor when you have a quarter-million-dollar house. If you want to save some for private school then do that out of what you have. Otherwise either rearrange your priorities so you can afford it or private school might not be in the cards for you. That said- while it was a blessing to be able to pay off the second mortgage and credit cards, your hesitancy to pay off the student loans makes me wonder if you will start living within your means after the loans are paid off. My concern is that your current spending levels that got you in this much debt in the first place will put you back in debt in the near future, and you won't have another inheritance to help pull you out. I know that wasn't your question, but I felt like I needed to add that to my answer as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "326da0a0c278ca89edbf77cc0da4b4ac", "text": "Something else to consider, even if your friend is on the up and up and never misses a payment: Until the house is paid off, any time you apply for credit banks will count the mortgage payment on your friends house against your ability to pay all your existing debts in addition to whatever new loan you're applying for. If you're renting a home now, this will likely mean that you'll be unable to buy one until your friends house is paid off.", "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": "9bcc0c9036c690555368b96512ef7ed8", "text": "\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \"\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\"\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "039cc579a85a6ad914607b922112d2e7", "text": "A point that hasn't been mentioned is whether paying down the mortgage sooner will get you out of unnecessary additional costs, such as PMI or a lender's requirement that you carry flood insurance on the outstanding mortgage balance, rather than the actual value/replacement cost of the structures. (My personal bugbear: house worth about $100K, while the bare land could be sold for about twice that, so I'm paying about 50% extra for flood insurance.) May not apply to your loan-from-parents situation, but in the general case it should be considered. FWIW, in your situation I'd probably invest the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f110db33d3b9354719dd74a4d5c4671d", "text": "Having a loan also represents risk. IMHO you should retire the loan as soon as feasible in most cases. JoeTaxpayer, as usual, raises a good point. With numbers as he is quoting, it is tolerable to have a loan around on a asset such as a home. While he did not mention it, I am sure that his rate is fixed. If the interest rate is variable: pay it off. If it is a student loan: pay it off. If you can have it retired quickly: pay it off and get the bank off your payroll. If it is consumer debt: pay it off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7856213a10310d10734defe41d41f977", "text": "Congratulations on your bonus may many more come your way. I am having a bit of trouble following your numbers but it seems you are considering PMI for the life of your loan. Once you get below 20% loan to value, you can petition the mortgage company to remove the PMI (with conventional loans; VA and FHA have lifetime PMI). If it was me, I'd do one of two things. Both involve paying off the student loan now. The savings from the student loan payment will assist you in helping you meet one of the two goals below. Also both involve getting a 15 year fixed. The first would be to buy the house now, and work like crazy to get rid of the PMI. My goal would be to get rid of this within 18 months. The second would be to save up enough cash for the 20% down and then buy the house. You'd miss out on the house you are looking at, which is kind of heartbreaking. Who is to say that a better home does not come along at the same price? My goal would be to have the downpayment in 9 months, and really try to have it in 6 months. Being an old guy that has experience how much of a virtue patience is, I'd recommend the second option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "305961f1031f30c9caf1ae48720be01e", "text": "You didn't answer my questions above, but the biggest factor if the two interest rates are similar is what it will cost you for mortgage insurance if you do not include a 20% down-payment on your next house purchase. I would take the extra money from the proceeds of the other sale to get to a 15-year loan on your next house, then put all of your extra money into paying down the student loans ahead of the 7 year schedule.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98436d927ef8f40a37a2a7e660ec9003", "text": "I don't like paying a house off early. Houses are quite illiquid investments. Lose your job, you can't get the money out. Housing prices go down, can't get your money out. Etc. You are in a better state owing 50k more on a house and with 50k in the bank, and if that money gets you in the habit of savings and investing, all the better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29b6e8b978e35dbb47d436dd1d9cd0c4", "text": "Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "348332ebd12750fb19b0752caded06c2", "text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
91f2e0e9370a20ef90b9555d2123de51
Are you preparing for a possible dollar (USD) collapse? (How?)
[ { "docid": "de65cacded988a766e4187cca6904dd6", "text": "There are two basic ways you can separate your investments from the dollar (or any other currency).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f49d5510429dbbfe5c6ef3a85a18ec30", "text": "I am not preparing for a sudden, major, catastrophic collapse in the US dollar. I am, however, preparing for a significant but gradual erosion of its value through inflation over the space of several years to a decade. To that end, I've invested most of my assets in the stock market (roughly 80%) through major world index funds, and limited my bond exposure (maintaining a small stake in commodity ETFs: gold, silver, platinum and palladium) due to both inflation risk and the inevitability of rising interest rates. I don't think most companies mind overmuch if the dollar falls gradually, as the bulk of their value is in their continuing income stream, not in a dollar-denominated bank account. I also try to keep what I can in tax-deferred accounts: If, after several years, your stocks were up 100% but inflation reduced the dollar's value by 50%, you're still stuck paying taxes on the entire gain, even though it was meaningless. I'm also anticipating tax hikes at some point (though not as a result of the dollar falling). It helps that I'm young and can stand a lot of investment risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4f9b66d1aa4508cfeffa190848a6514", "text": "Depends what kind of expenses you intend to use this money for. If you plan to buy housing in the future (eg you're saving a deposit), then you need to ensure that the value doesn't deteriorate relative to the value of the housing you are likely to buy - so you could buy a Residential REIT, or buy some investment property. If you expect to use this money for food, then you should buy suitable assets (eg Wheat futures, etc). Link the current asset to the future expense, and you will be fine. If you buy Gold, then you are making a bet that Gold will retain its value compared to the thing you want to purchase in future. It doesn't matter what the price of Gold does in $US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61d4dc5d0d5d24072fd42eeb5e6639bc", "text": "I've thought of the following ways to hedge against a collapsing dollar:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d075b1385612a26e2689c8319ed4177e", "text": "I recently finished reading a book that you may be interested in based on your question, The Ultimate Suburban Survivalist Guide. The author begins with a discussion of why he thinks the US economy and currency could collapse. It gets a little scary. Then he goes into great detail on commodities, specifically gold. The rest of the book is about what you can be doing to prepare yourself and your family to be more self sufficient. To answer your question, I do anticipate problems with US currency in the future and plan to put some money in gold if the price dips.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8f1abe5d6acad4a5681cbee71690432", "text": "\"Invest in other currencies and assets that have \"\"real\"\" value. And personally I don't count gold as something of real value. Of course its used in the industry but besides that its a pretty useless metal and only worth something because everybody else thinks that everybody thinks its worth something. So I would buy land, houses, stocks, ...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "070013f599d17cefeb53cdaa8e8ce532", "text": "I'd like to provide ideas other than gold, stocks, property, bonds on how to prepare for a severe crisis. My suggestions below may even make your life more happy now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b72db17639d8369ec3dcb5b7f060b69f", "text": "\"Buying gold, silver, palladium, copper and platinum. The first two I am thinking about new currencies. The last three for the perpetual need for the metals in industry. I also have invested in Numismatic coins. They are small portable and easy to hide around the house. I only collect silver coins, so even if the world really blows up and numismatics goes out the window, I can depend on them forming a barter system through the content value of the silver. The problem with collectable items is that they are easy to see. For example, a nice painting just shouts out \"\"steal me!\"\". I don't buy large gold coins. As long as the coin is below 1/4 Oz gold I collect it. If the dollar does finaly collapse, to be honest it will be so bad that I think weapons will be order of the day. Do I think it will collapse...nah never.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30152e0feec6c0a9cef953d3c3199026", "text": "The collapse of the US economic system is one of the many things I am preparing for. To answer the how, me personally I am doing some investing in gold and silver. However I am investing more in the tools, goods and gear that will help me be independent of the system around me. In short nothing will change for me if the US dollar goes belly up. A book I recommend is Possum Living (http://www.possumliving.net/). Other than that I am investing in trade goods such as liquor, cigarettes, medical supplies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e1a355598fe228c3a2011f9a52fdfd1", "text": "\"I think it's apt to remind that there's no shortcuts, if someone thinks about doing FX fx: - negative sum game (big spread or commissions) - chaos theory description is apt - hard to understand costs (options are insurance and for every trade there is equivalent option position - so unless you understand how those are priced, there's a good chance you're getting a \"\"sh1tty deal\"\" as that Goldman guy famously said) - averaging can help if timing is bad but you could be just getting deeper into the \"\"deal\"\" I just mentioned and giving a smarter counterparty your money could backfire as it's the \"\"ammo\"\" they can use to defend their position. This doesn't apply to your small hedge/trade? Well that's what I thought not long ago too! That's why I mentioned chaos theory. If you can find a party to hedge with that is not hedging with someone who eventually ends up hedging with JPM/Goldman/name any \"\"0 losing days a year\"\" \"\"bank\"\".. Then you may have a point. And contrary to what many may still think, all of the above applies to everything you can think of that has to do with money. All the billions with 0-losing days need to come from somewhere and it's definitely not coming just from couple FX punters.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "db7a27bf0afb30d12a004f760578f6a8", "text": "\"is there anything I can do now to protect this currency advantage from future volatility? Generally not much. There are Fx hedges available, however these are for specialist like FI's and Large Corporates, traders. I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. If you know for sure you are going to spend 6 months in Australia. It would be wise to money certain amount of money that you need. So this way, there is no need to move back funds from Australia to US. Again whether this will be beneficial or not is speculative and to an extent can't be predicted.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d97f0121812448b1da034da9f68ef43", "text": "While it's possible that the dollar could lose its grip as the global currency, it's unlikely that it will be quickly supplanted by another. The world might simply see a a paradigm shift towards the use of whatever currency suits whichever counterparty at any given moment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71f9d8edc596046cff8cea31387f42ab", "text": "Gold is money. If fiat money fails, only physical assets will count. Gold has been an historic store of wealth. Silver is also historically a good thing to possess when governmental systems fail. Don't buy paper gold, it is based on illusion. No one knows what will happen this time, but fiat money will likely fail again, as it has many times. Good luck to you for at least trying to prepare, you are an inspiriation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86516c0d3489f7e5c5913e2155b60eb1", "text": "But then why wouldn't that be their primary mode to control their currency now/are they starting/hinting at doing so to move away from US treasuries? There must be benefits to Treasury purchasing that seems better to them, maybe that QE can't do alone? And I have to imagine with the tenuous nature of their financial system, the shock alone from losing access to the Dollar (and before they could use QE to devalue the currency back down) would be a major issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50b52264b9409f57b1b597876e96528a", "text": "Technically, you could improve your odds in this hypothetical pre-apocolyptic economy by diversifying your digital and tangible precious-metal-commodity portfolio by going in with gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and others. That being said I'm not sure if one can access tangible stores of all these metals...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71973b471b6779c847e78549ccae7fb6", "text": "Rather than screwing around with foreign currencies, hop over to Germany and open an account at the first branch of Deutsche or Commerzbank you see. If the euro really does disintegrate, you want to have your money in the strongest country of the lot. Edit: and what I meant to say is that if the euro implodes, you'll end up with deutschmarks, which, unlike the new IEP, will *not* need to devalue. (And in the meantime, you've still got euros, so you have no FX risk.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fc3014e53ce66c2041906e87955ae2e", "text": "The ruble was, is and will be very unstable because of unstable political situation in Russia and the economy strongly dependent of the export of raw resources. What you can do? I assume, you want to minimize risk. The best way to achieve that is to make your savings in some stable currency. Euro and Swiss Franc are currently very stable currencies, so storing your surpluses in them is a very good option if you want to keep your money safe. To prevent political risk, you should keep your money in countries with stable political regime, which are unlikely to 'nationalize' the savings of the citizens in predictable future. As for your existing savings in rubles, it's a hard deal. I assume, as the web developer, you have a plenty of money, which have lost a lot of value. If you convert them to euro or francs, you will preserver the current value (after the loss). You'll safe them agaist ruble falling down, but in case the ruble will return to previous value, you'll loose. Keeping savings in instable currencies is, however, speculation, like investing in gold etc. So if you can mentally accept the loss and want to sleep good, convert them. You have also option to invest in properties, for example buy an extra appartment. It's a good way to deal with financial surplus in Europe in US, however you should be aware, in Russland it's connected with the political risk. The real estates can be confiscated in any moment by the state and you can't run away with it (the savings can also be confiscated, but there's a fair chance you'll manage to rescue them if you act quickly).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f0df3b976c5c95311470cb1c41604f2", "text": "They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7e3492cf4cc9b19031d374d516784f", "text": "You have currency risk either way. The only question is deal with it now or later. No one can tell you which action is better until we look at it in hindsight. You could hedge and move some now, some later. Invest your USD in US equities and move some to EUR and invest that in EUR companies. I'd suggest having your money in the same currency as where you are living, since for the most part, you'll be in the same boat as your peers and neighbors. If you have high inflation, so will your friends and neighbors and you won't feel so bad. And if your currency gets stronger, then so will the currency of the people you are hanging out with. It's similar to betting on Don't Pass in craps. If you bet against the rest of the table, you could win when they lose, but then all your friends will be sad and you'll be happy. And vice versa, when your friends are high-fiving, you'll be in the dumps. I'd say it's better to be in the same boat as your peers since that's usually how we judge our happiness when we compare our situation to others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57904482f79435e2e4f514c6c20f95a3", "text": "They're not going to do anything about it. Washington needs the debt wheel to keep spinning, or the Dollar will lose its position as the Reserve Currency. Then all hell would break loose. Powerful countries like Japan are going to have to take the initiative. And apparently they are starting to. It has to be countries like Japan because if a weak country tries this, they'll get invaded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e62c2011d876ce75d484627e68e34ac", "text": "as long as US bonds will keep their status of a safe haven and the dollar will continue to be the world reserve currency the bond rates will stay low. hell, after S&amp;P downgraded the US credit rating, the bond yields actually dropped, indicating an influx on money. the shock will come. sooner or more probably later.. it won't be the end of the world, just another nasty downturn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e120a8aa8686f6e32f4e42440d7ee222", "text": "I'm the equivalent of the FED at ROBLOX. I run a virtual economy there worth millions of dollars. Even though we are in the business of printing our own money, we've seen much more stability in our currency than in the USD. It actually appreciates over time. I don't think it would make a good investment though, nor would any of the online virtual currencies that I am aware of.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdb07168dd6bdbfa4ab1f3183deb7b9f", "text": "\"i hate to say it, and i will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but i don't think you can do anything. i'm not an expert, so i might be wrong, but if greece (or any euro country, for that matters) decides to exit the euro, the currency will be dead within the week. that, from what i've read in various newspapers, will be an incredibly bad news for the european economy. which *will* collapse in a very short period of time. then the collapse would propagate (more or less slowly, more or less significantly) to other economies, especially china and US, possibly middle east, too. at that point, you (well, we) have a major economic cataclysm. would it really matter if you had a tiny bit more money than your neighbour, if production stops, goods don't move that much anymore, and your country is generally in such a deep shit that the potato famine will look like a day in eurodisney? i agree with what other people are saying: they will not allow the euro to fall. \"\"they\"\" sounds like hidden conspiracies, but even if european leaders have taught us that we can expect the worse from them (2 world wars in the last centuries are just the quicker reminder of their stupidity), there's the americans, the chineses, and so on. i think the worst thing you, or anyone else in europe, can do is panicking and moving their money around. if the exchange rate with the euro is not fixed (and nothing is) you still have a chance to lose a significant amount of money in the short-medium run, in a worst case scenario. chill. relax. if you're really desperate and think that things *will* go bad, try turning a hobby into another job, especially if you can do it online and can bring you a steady income eventually. **TL; DR: if the world economy collapse, you will still lose money. live happy. chill.**\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddfbde9085a0e2ad770f2767da803855", "text": "&gt; At some point we are going to have abused our global reserve status to the point the world doesn't want to extend it to us anymore. This will happen *as soon as there is someplace better to go*. This, in turn, will require: * Someone running sound economics * Those sound economics not being dependant on US/dollar hegemony * The US not blowing them up These are not impossible criteria, and absolutely will **eventually** be met, but I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that that point is a long way away at this point. We have a lot of time, and much of it will be tumultuous &amp; uncertain in many ways- but the dollar &amp; US treasuries will still be the thinnest kid at fat camp until it ends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31389a73cfb89b48bea2c20e060166c5", "text": "Imagine how foolish the people that bought Apple at $100 must have felt. It was up tenfold for the $10 it traded at just years prior, how could it go any higher? Stocks have no memory. A stock's earnings may grow and justify the new higher price people are willing to pay. When FB came public, I remarked how I'd analyze the price and felt it was overvalued until its earnings came up. Just because it's gone down ever since, doesn't make it a buy, yet.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
7a5acc9bce4481841585da0c24b62656
How to invest in a currency increasing in value relative to another?
[ { "docid": "ed60840adabb35f50fbe3ecac6904235", "text": "\"What you're looking for are either FX Forwards or FX Futures. These products are traded differently but they are basically the same thing -- agreements to deliver currency at a defined exchange rate at a future time. Almost every large venue or bank will transact forwards, when the counterparty (you or your broker) has sufficient trust and credit for the settlement risk, but the typical duration is less than a year though some will do a single-digit multi-year forward on a custom basis. Then again, all forwards are considered custom contracts. You'll also need to know that forwards are done on currency pairs, so you'll need to pick the currency to pair your NOK against. Most likely you'll want EUR/NOK simply for the larger liquidity of that pair over other possible pairs. A quote on a forward will usually just be known by the standard currency pair ticker with a settlement date different from spot. E.g. \"\"EUR/NOK 12M\"\" for the 12 month settlement. Futures, on the other hand, are exchange traded and more standardized. The vast majority through the CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange). Your broker will need access to one of these exchanges and you simply need to \"\"qualify\"\" for futures trading (process depends on your broker). Futures generally have highest liquidity for the next \"\"IMM\"\" expiration (quarterly expiration on well known standard dates), but I believe they're defined for more years out than forwards. At one FX desk I've knowledge of, they had 6 years worth of quarterly expirations in their system at any one time. Futures are generally known by a ticker composed of a \"\"globex\"\" or \"\"cme\"\" code for the currency concatenated with another code representing the expiration. For example, \"\"NOKH6\"\" is 'NOK' for Norwegian Krone, 'H' for March, and '6' for the nearest future date's year that ends in '6' (i.e. 2016). Note that you'll be legally liable to deliver the contracted size of Krone if you hold through expiration! So the common trade is to hold the future, and net out just before expiration when the price more accurately reflects the current spot market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1036b5a2d57545cec61d53dda57b458c", "text": "On international stock exchanges, they trade Puts and Calls, typically also for currencies. If for example 1 NOK is worth 1 $ now, and you buy Calls for 10000 NOK at 1.05 $ each, and in a year the NOK is worth 1.20 $ (which is what you predict), you can execute the Call, meaning 'buying' the 10000 NOK for the contracted 1.05 $ and selling them for the market price of 1.20 $, netting you 12000 - 10500 = 1500 $. Converting those back to NOK would give you 1250 NOK. Considering that those Calls might cost you maybe 300 NOK, you made 950 NOK. Note that if your prediction is common knowledge, Calls will be appropriately priced (=expensive), and there is little to make on them. And note also that if you were wrong, your Calls are worth less than toilet paper, so you lost the complete 300 NOK you paid for them. [all numbers are completely made up, for illustration purposes] You can make the whole thing easier if you define the raise of the NOK against a specific currency, for example $ or EUR. If you can, you can instead buy Puts for that currency, and you save yourself converting the money twice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e5cfe6aa28b8ba5a6e5a16b739cd3c3", "text": "Forex trading contracts are generally fairly short dated as you mention. Months to weeks. Professional forex traders often extend the length of their bet by rolling monthly or quarterly contracts. Closing a contract out a few days before it would expire and reopening a new contract for the next quarter/month. This process can be rather expensive and time consuming for a retail investor however. A more practical (but also not great) method would be to look into currency ETFs. The ETFs generally do the above process for you and are significantly more convenient. However, depending on the broker these may not be available and when available can be illiquid and/or expensive even in major currency pairs. It's worth a bunch of research before you buy. Note, in both cases you are in a practical sense doubling your NOK exposure as your home currency is NOK as well. This may be riskier than many people would care to be with their retirement money. An adverse move would, at the same time you would lose money, make it much to buy foreign goods, which frankly is most goods in a small open country like Norway. The most simple solution would be to overweight local NOK stocks or if you believe stocks are overvalued as you mention NOK denominated bonds. With this you keep your NOK exposure (a currency you believe will appreciate) without doubling it as well as add expected returns above inflation from the stock growth/dividends or bond real interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6229feba27ae1feef6060f1841996634", "text": "The increase of currency value in relation to another is a critical determinant of the economic health. It plays an important part in the level of trade and affects the world’s free market economy. But, they also effect on smaller scale as they create an impact on the portfolio of investors. So, it is suggested that the investors should make their trades wisely keeping in mind the value of other currencies that might your trade. Also, you should check the news daily to get regular updates and be well-informed of any changes happening in the market", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "19e63ae5bc64b1b6708549f389a6c615", "text": "International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a5261fd35e60a67b52827496240db6b", "text": "\"Like Jeremy T said above, silver is a value store and is to be used as a hedge against sovereign currency revaluations. Since every single currency in the world right now is a free-floating fiat currency, you need silver (or some other firm, easily store-able, protect-able, transportable asset class; e.g. gold, platinum, ... whatever...) in order to protect yourself against government currency devaluations, since the metal will hold its value regardless of the valuation of the currency which you are denominating it in (Euro, in your case). Since the ECB has been hesitant to \"\"print\"\" large amounts of currency (which causes other problems unrelated to precious metals), the necessity of hedging against a plummeting currency exchange rate is less important and should accordingly take a lower percentage in your diversification strategy. However, if you were in.. say... Argentina, for example, you would want to have a much larger percentage of your assets in precious metals. The EU has a lot of issues, and depreciation of hard assets courtesy of a lack of fluid currency/capital (and overspending on a lot of EU governments' parts in the past), in my opinion, lessens the preservative value of holding precious metals. You want to diversify more heavily into precious metals just prior to government sovereign currency devaluations, whether by \"\"printing\"\" (by the ECB in your case) or by hot capital flows into/out of your country. Since Eurozone is not an emerging market, and the current trend seems to be capital flowing back into the developed economies, I think that diversifying away from silver (at least in overall % of your portfolio) is the order of the day. That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio? Absolutely. Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio? Not right now. However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to \"\"print\"\" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the \"\"real value\"\" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into? Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates). Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07e19c760a476464c617d8cdf8002f85", "text": "At the time of writing, the Canadian dollar is worth roughly $0.75 U.S. Now, it's not possible for you to accurately predict what it'll be worth in, say, ten years. Maybe it'll be worth $0.50 U.S. Maybe $0.67. Maybe $1.00. Additionally, you can't know in advance if the Canadian economy will grow faster than the U.S., or slower, or by how much. Let's say you don't want to make a prediction. You just want to invest 50% of your money in Canadian stocks, 50% in U.S. Great. Do that, and don't worry about the current interest rates. Let's say that you do want to make a prediction. You are firmly of the belief that the Canadian dollar will be worth $1.00 U.S. dollar in approximately ten years. And furthermore, the Canadian economy and the U.S. economy will grow at roughly equal rates, in their local currencies. Great. You should put more of your money in Canadian stocks. Let's say that you want to make a prediction. The Canadian economy is tanking. It's going to be worth $0.67 or less in ten years. And on top of that, the U.S. economy is primed for growth. It's going to grow far faster than the Canadian economy. In that case, you want to invest mostly in U.S. stocks. Let's get more complicated. You think the Canadian dollar is going to recover, but boy, maple syrup futures are in trouble. The next decade is all about Micky Mouse. Now what should you do? Well, it depends on how fast the U.S. economy expands, compared to the currency difference. What should you do? I can't tell you that because I can't predict the future. What did I do? I bought 25% Canadian stocks, 25% U.S. stocks, 25% world stocks, and 25% Canadian bonds (roughly), back when the Canadian dollar was stronger. What am I doing now? Same thing. I don't know enough about the respective economies to judge. If I had a firm opinion, though, I'd certainly be happy to change my percentages a little. Not a lot, but a little.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3df65e68c8633ccfc01a4496253623f3", "text": "How can I calculate my currency risk exposure? You own securities that are priced in dollars, so your currency risk is the amount (all else being equal) that your portfolio drops if the dollar depreciates relative to the Euro between now and the time that you plan to cash out your investments. Not all stocks, though, have a high correlation relative to the dollar. Many US companies (e.g. Apple) do a lot of business in foreign countries and do not necessarily move in line with the Dollar. Calculate the correlation (using Excel or other statistical programs) between the returns of your portfolio and the change in FX rate between the Dollar and Euro to see how well your portfolio correlated with that FX rate. That would tell you how much risk you need to mitigate. how can I hedge against it? There are various Currency ETFs that will track the USD/EUR exchange rate, so one option could be to buy some of those to offset your currency risk calculated above. Note that ETFs do have fees associated with them, although they should be fairly small (one I looked at had a 0.4% fee, which isn't terrible but isn't nothing). Also note that there are ETFs that employ currency risk mitigation internally - including one on the Nasdaq 100 . Note that this is NOT a recommendation for this ETF - just letting you know about alternative products that MIGHT meet your needs.", "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": "ffed5c7119959ba1d41c3d6541485cca", "text": "You could buy some call options on the USD/INR. That way if the dollar goes up, you'll make the difference, and if the dollar goes down, then you'll lose the premium you paid. I found some details on USD/INR options here Looks like the furthest out you can go is 3 months. Note they're european style options, so they can only be exercised on the expiration date (as opposed to american style, which can be exercised at any time up to the expiration date). Alternatively, you could buy into some futures contracts for the USD/INR. Those go out to 12 months. With futures if the dollar goes up, you get the difference, if the dollar goes down, you pay the difference. I'd say if you were going to do something like this, stick with the options, since the most you could lose there is the premium you put up for the option contracts. With futures, if it suddenly moved against you you could find yourself with huge losses. Note that playing in the futures and options markets are an easy way to get burned -- it's not for the faint of heart.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1045b2db53cd0bc42ef37ebd4f8aad91", "text": "About the inflation or low interest rates in both the countries is out of the equation especially since rupee is always a low currency compared to Euro. You cannot make profit in Euros using rupee or vice-versa. It all depends on where you want to use the money, in India or Europe? If you want use the money from fixed deposit in Europe, then buy fixed deposit in euros from Europe. If you want to use the money in India, then convert the euros and buy FD in India.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28e02a87e6118dfc2685339589467995", "text": "The best way to do this would be to exchange the funds into USD and wire the funds to your bank account in the US. It is up to you whether you want to hold USD or Euros. Depends if you plan to invest money in the US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "615d936fbe8731c2a40bba364141b151", "text": "A currency that is strong right now is one that is expensive for you to buy. The perfect one would be a currency that is weak now but will get stronger; the worst currency is one that is strong today and gets weak. If a currency stays unchanged it doesn't matter whether it is weak or strong today as long as it doesn't get weaker / stronger. (While this advice is correct, it is useless for investing since you don't know which currencies will get weaker / stronger in the future). Investing in your own currency means less risk. Your local prices are usually not affected by currency change. If you safe for retirement and want to retire in a foreign country, you might consider in that country's currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71973b471b6779c847e78549ccae7fb6", "text": "Rather than screwing around with foreign currencies, hop over to Germany and open an account at the first branch of Deutsche or Commerzbank you see. If the euro really does disintegrate, you want to have your money in the strongest country of the lot. Edit: and what I meant to say is that if the euro implodes, you'll end up with deutschmarks, which, unlike the new IEP, will *not* need to devalue. (And in the meantime, you've still got euros, so you have no FX risk.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "662b45191a81ec12d18ed274f126065a", "text": "If you are confident that the US Dollar will recover compared to the Australian Dollar then you could use your Australian dollars (assuming you have some) to buy an ETF that tracks the value of the USD. Then after the USD makes its run (or after the Australian dollar falls) you can cash out and claim victory. If that's not quite your situation, or if you want to learn more Investopedia has a great article that talks more about investing in currency ETFs and mentions a couple other options out there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40f4b295402b38de190ba9198138eea9", "text": "\"Currency, like gold and other commodities, isn't really much of an investment at all. It doesn't actually generate any return. Its value might fluctuate at a different rate than that of the US dollar or Euro, but that's about it. It might have a place as a very small slice of a basket of global currencies, but most US / European households don't actually need that sort of basket; it's really more of a risk-management strategy than an investment strategy and it doesn't really reflect the risks faced by an ordinary family in the US (or Europe or similar). Investments shouldn't generally be particularly \"\"exciting\"\". Generally, \"\"exciting\"\" opportunities mean that you're speculating on the market, not really investing in it. If you have a few thousand dollars you don't need and don't mind losing, you can make some good money speculating some of the time, but you can also just lose it all too. (Maybe there's a little room for excitement if you find amazing deals on ordinary investments at the very bottom of a stock market crash when decent, solid companies are on sale much cheaper than they ordinarily are.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdacd159176e301372a26a6f8d7cb14d", "text": "\"No, this is not solid advice. It's a prediction with very little factual basis, since US interest rates are kept just as low and debt levels are just as high as in the Eurozone. The USD may rise or fall against the EUR, stay the same or move back and forth. Nobody can say with any certainty. However, it is not nearly as risky as \"\"normal forex speculation\"\", since that is usually very short term and highly leveraged. You're unlikely to lose more than 20-30% of your capital by just buying and holding USD. Of course, the potential gains are also limited.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6f1845980e14e2a771a1640c2189af8", "text": "\"A general principle in finance is that you shouldn't stick with an investment or situation just because it's how you're currently invested. You can ask yourself the following question to help you think it through: If, instead, I had enough GBP to buy 20000 CHF, would I think it was a good idea to do so? (I'm guessing the answer is probably \"\"no.\"\") This way of thinking assumes you can actually make the exchange without giving someone too big of a cut. With that much money on the line, be sure to shop around for a good exchange rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f438b208b5a03c5a2b060e3b1ec50e4c", "text": "If the intention is after maturing to convert back the Rupees into Euro, its not a good idea. Generally the interest rate in Euro and the interest rate in Rupee are offset by the predicted exchange rate. i.e. the Rupee will fall compared to Euro by similar rate. The point at Step 5 is generally what is expected to happen. At times this can be less or more depending on the local / global factors. So on average you will not make money, some times you will loose and sometimes you will gain. Plus I have shown flat conversion rates, typically there is a Buy Rate and a Sell Rate for a pair of currencies. There is a difference / spread that is the margins of Bank. Typically in the range of 2 to 4% depending on the currency pairs.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
f4151ed38160732e8d1c7f9715973574
Is there any way to know how much new money the US is printing?
[ { "docid": "8819f266d5577cb5fa4dbb17623ebbec", "text": "\"The Fed doesn't exactly have a specific schedule when they decide to create a new dollar. Instead, they engage in open market operations, creating and destroying money as is necessary to preserve a certain interest rate for lending and borrowing. It's an ongoing process. When the Fed meets periodically and they see that inflation is getting out of hand, they will raise that rate; when they see that the economy is weak, they will lower it. They change the target rate from time to time, but they seldom tell people exactly what they'll do in advance, aside from them recently saying that rates will remain incredibly low \"\"for an extended period of time\"\". There are people who trade futures contracts based on what they think these rates will be, and the Fed does publish information on what the market thinks the probabilities are. That's probably the closest thing to telling you \"\"how much and when\"\". If you want to know about the size of the money supply, ask the Federal Reserve; you probably want series H.6, Money Stock Measures. For an explanation of what the data series there means, ask Wikipedia: you're probably interested in M2, because that's what actually affects the economy, though M0 is closer to what they actually \"\"print\"\" (currency, bills and coins, and deposits at the central bank). If you're concerned about the actual real value of your dollar dropping, the actual value drop is better understood by looking at either the inflation rate, or an exchange rate against a foreign currency (and depending on what you were hoping to use that dollar for, there are a couple of different inflation rates). The standard inflation rate which measures what happens in your day to day life is the consumer price index, published by the BLS. There are a variety of forecasts of this, but I'm not aware of any official government-agency forecasts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "901f2c8cb32f9bbb3b3737c43cd6f6fd", "text": "\"The Federal Reserve is not the only way that money can be \"\"printed.\"\" Every bank does fractional reserve banking, thereby increasing the money supply every time they make a new loan. There's a number called the reserve requirement which limits how much money each bank can create. Lowering the reserve requirement allows banks to create more money. Raising it will destroy money. But banks can also destroy money by calling in loans or being less willing to make new loans. So when you look at the number of banks in the US, and the number of loans they all have, it's impossible to figure out exactly how much the money supply is expanding or contracting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "382ff86e0a2e64b85a2ea9b159e7acb3", "text": "\"This chart summarizes the FED's balance sheet (things the FED has purchased - US treasuries, mortgage backed securities, etc.) nicely. It shows the massive level of \"\"printing\"\" the FED has done in the past two years. The FED \"\"prints\"\" new money to buy these assets. As lucius has pointed out the fractional reserve banking process also expands the money supply. When the FED buys something from Bank A, then Bank A can take the money and start lending it out. This process continues as the recipients of the money deposit the newly printed money in other fractional reserve banks. FYI....it took 95 years for the FED to print the first $900 billion. It took one year to print the next $900 billion.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "8b2553ca379034c58a9b65547529cb50", "text": "\"Amount is the closest single word. \"\"Amount in dollars\"\" would be the easiest way to specify information you are requesting. \"\"Amount and currency\"\" if you ware in an area using multiple currencies. An accountant might be able to give you a more technical term, but it would be accountancy jargon. Amount due, credit amount, debit amount, amount deposited, amount credited, amount withdrawn, or amount included. If you're writing instructions and want to specify that the person following the instructions needs to indicate the currency, you'll probably have to simply state that requirement. Based on US centric thinking, inside the US, money is dollars, dollars is money. For US citizens outside the country, we would always tack on the currency. 100 dollars, or 100 Euro. There is a segment of Americans who do not understand geography, and that other countries exist, and that they use different currencies, might not realize that other countries have currencies named dollars, and that USD means US Dollars. So for U.S. citizens, be specific and clear. Bottom line, if this is written for US residents, and they need to specify the currency, you need to explicitly require them to \"\"List the amount and currency.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4e87a814da9242f7855873f3fdeff89", "text": "I believe there are two ways new money is created: My favorite description of this (money creation) comes from Chris Martenson: the video is here on Youtube. And yes, I believe both can create inflation. In fact this is what happened in the US between 2004 and 2007: increasing loans to households to buy houses created an inflation of home prices.", "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": "9a6362547ac6859733c2e74e823f56da", "text": "Japan printed 11 trillion yen on Monday. They do this by monetizing their own debt. The increase in the supply of yen affects the value of the currency. Strange thought, I know. Greece has an economic crisis because they were borrowing at rates that AAA rated countries do. Someone noticed that they weren't exactly a AAA country when they needed to ask for bailout money. Since all government debt is considered risk free and same as cash, this came as a shock to most 'investors' hence the 'crisis' edit: my bad, was 11 trillion, not 9 trillion", "title": "" }, { "docid": "119a3ad16226b55f87fc67344cc171f8", "text": "\"&gt; but the buying power of that money can be significantly reduced to the point where it's fundamentally useless, i.e. inter-war Germany and many countries in South and Central America. That's true, but *how* does that come about? The effect on buying power stems from the level of spending in the present period. Too little leaves you anywhere from outright deflation and contraction to weaker growth falling short of capacity. Too much reaches capacity and keeps spending, bidding up prices and driving down purchasing power. It has nothing to do with debt:GDP or interest payments. &gt; Germany managed to skate by by creating a new Deutschmark in a confidence trick, and it worked because Germany is a solid, iron clad manufacturing powerhouse of a lot of stuff. There are two important differences between inter-war Germany and the US. First is that inter-war Germany *lost a war*. This real shock is kind of important. When you're talking about buying power of money, one side of it is the amount of money in circulation but the other side of it is how much real output there is to buy and German real output capacity collapsed after the war. Their most productive regions were occupied territory and they were no longer a powerhouse manufacturing a lot of stuff, driving down the value of their currency. So lesson number one from Germany: real output collapse harms your currency. The second problem is that losing a war left Germany saddled with war reparations denominated in foreign currency. When you're on the hook for something you don't print you're in a situation where you can run out of money and that's exactly what happened to them. They tried printing more of their own currency to buy the foreign stuff with but that quickly drove down the value of German currency. So lesson number two from Germany is you don't want to be on the hook for a currency you don't issue. Put the two together and you have a real supply shock + foreign-denominated debt eviscerating the buying power of German currency. It wasn't debt:GDP but the real basis for their economy collapsing out from under them pushed along by a need for foreign currency. &gt;My question is, at what point do we engage Washington's unlimited money printing presses until we reach that point? In answer to your question, the printing presses are what funds the real economy. The worry in terms of avoiding \"\"that point\"\" is in making sure we keep that real economy productive and fully funded. Ironically, taking our eye off the ball to focus on budget balance at the expense of real output pushes the economy in the direction you're afraid of going. See also: the euro zone today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "065475f898aa9b5dc117c58149a7a8b6", "text": "Im gonna make up some numbers for this teaching moment. 2011: $60,000 2012: $50,000 2013: $100,000 2014: $70,000 2015: $60,000 2016: $75,000 2017: $90,000 2017 is the highest number since 2013. But before we had 2017 data, we only had up to 2016 data. In 2016, 2016 was the highest number since 2013. We couldn't say the same about 2015 though. In 2015, 2014 was the highest number since 2013. Such short timetables are kinda ridiculous to even claim. This type of number is only meaningful if its a big number of years like biggest deficit since 1953 (60ish years ago)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de76dd8be879644dd6aff119fe53a486", "text": "Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75dd423db9fa528737a4fe446df58da4", "text": "\"Although there are some good points made here as to the cause of inflation (mostly related to supply and demand), azcoastal does head in a different direction, one which I myself was going to take. Let me give a different angle, however. Another cause of inflation is the printing of money by the government (not simply replacing old money with new, but adding to the total money in circulation). If the government doubles the amount of currency in circulation (for the sake of argument and easy math), the value of all money decreases by a factor of 2. That's inflation, and the way G. Edward Griffin in The Creature From Jekyll Island puts it, it's really tantamount to a hidden tax. In a nutshell, the federal government wants to buy some cool stuff like new tanks or planes, or they want to give a bunch of food stamps to poor people, or they want to fly their private jets around, but they don't have enough money from taxes. So, they print money and spend it and buy their stuff. Because they've just increased the money in circulation, however, money loses its value. For example, your savings has dropped in value by half, despite the fact that the same number of dollars is in your savings account. This is just a way the government can tax you without taxing you. They buy stuff and you now have less money (i.e., your retirement is worth less) and you don't even know you just got taxed. Makes me sick that we let our \"\"leaders\"\" get away with this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d58c18122108c3d3689c8b85ab9e2ac", "text": "\"You can do a lot of deduction FINRA keeps a \"\"REG-SHO\"\" list created daily that tells what the daily short volume is. March 26th 2014's list: http://regsho.finra.org/FNSQshvol20140326.txt If you are talking about the United States, this answer may be better ;)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c49716a0538758168f596a785f54f5f0", "text": "From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9607983f55e26db7ca05e1f721a96fee", "text": "What a joke. The world economy would have collapsed without Goldman Sachs and Citibank? That is blatant propaganda and you're deluded if you believe it. Government intervention caused the housing bubble, and government intervention is what those huge banks relied on when they made 30:1 securities swaps wagers. Those bankers acted like criminals and the government cheered them on and made it easier. There is absolutely zero incentive for either the bankers or the politicians to be fiscally responsible, that is the problem. Printing money has not caused harm? Are you mental? Printing money is outright theft from every working man. It is the epitome of corruption and the hallmark of a failing government slipping into fascism and plutocracy. They won't even tell us how much money is on the books anymore. It is an arbitrary amount which changes at their discretion. There is more debt in the system than actual value, and the debt gains interest faster than the value appreciates. The entire currency system is designed to transfer money to the wealthy and carry a debt which can never be paid off. Those dollars that you and I work for every day are just a means to control us.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c743e2b0aae682b2668a1394df2d6d16", "text": "\"Many years ago, I worked on software that had to print the date, payee, and amounts on pre-printed checks. Other than the MICR line (which had a particular placement with respect to the bottom edge and required a particular font in a particular point size), most aspects of the check layout and format were up to the particular check provider. Then there was a desire to start using optical character recognition to further automate check handling. A standard came out, that most checks I see now seem to follow. The standard dictated the exact dollar sign glyph to be printed to the left of the amount box. This glyph was used by the OCR to locate the amount. There were specific tolerances for where you could print/write the amount relative to that dollar sign. There were also some requirements for the box containing the amount to have some clearance from the noisy backgrounds pre-printed on many checks. But what font you used inside the amount box was, as far as I could tell, unspecified. After all, customers could always hand-write the amount. Interestingly, the part of the check where you spell out the amount is known as the \"\"legal amount.\"\" If the amount in numerals and the amount in words don't match, the spelled version takes precedence, legally. (The theory being that it's easier to doctor the numerals to change the apparent value of the check than it is to change the words.) I always found it ironic that the layout standard to enable OCR standard was focused on reading the numerals rather than the legal amount. OCR has come a long way since then, so I wouldn't be surprised if, nowadays, both amounts are read, even on hand-written checks. A little search shows that current (voluntary) standards are put out by the ANSI X9 group.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8d1a7ed650bccb30e84e1f254b57628", "text": "\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1979927d31a02180125fb2ab9be92ef5", "text": "I'm not sure that the deflation will occur regardless of policy choice. There is a clear choice: inflation through printing or some sort of sustained deflation/deleveraging. I'd actually venture to guess that the powers-that-be are clearly on the side of printing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5122cc28fe6878ce5ddc769dc0c2c792", "text": "The federal reserve loans the US government dollars. The Federal reserve is NOT owned by the government, it is a private banking institution. So the US has to get capital from investor to borrow those dollars. Printing more dollars makes the dollars less valuable, and at the same time the investments less attractive unless there is a higher rate of interest attached to it.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
df6cf504eba5c7dfbf136ce2b8aab49a
Is there a general guideline for what percentage of a portfolio should be in gold?
[ { "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": "a45d86720144171e1b19179224fec645", "text": "It depends on what your goals are, your age, how much debt you have, etc. Assuming -- and we all know what happens when you assume -- that your financial life is otherwise in order, the 5% to 10% range you're talking about isn't overinvesting. You won't have a lot of company; most people don't own any. One comment on this part: I have some gold (GLD), but not much ... Gold and GLD are not the same thing at all. Owning shares of the SPDR Gold Trust is not the same thing as owning gold coins or bars. You're achieving different ends by owning GLD shares as opposed to the physical yellow metal. GLD will follow the spot price of gold pretty closely, but it isn't the same thing as physical ownership.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc8b26879a2340e97a9b043f7e3f155", "text": "My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d7d32aa6bacabb609be5bda2008d0c4", "text": "By mentioning GLD, I presume therefore you are referring to the SPRD Gold Exchange Traded Fund that is intended to mirror the price of gold without you having to personally hold bullion, or even gold certificates. While how much is a distinctly personal choice, there are seemingly (at least) three camps of people in the investment world. First would be traditional bond/fixed income and equity people. Gold would play no direct role in their portfolio, other than perhaps holding gold company shares in some other vehicle, but they would not hold much gold directly. Secondly, at the mid-range would be someone like yourself, that believes that is in and of itself a worthy investment and makes it a non-trivial, but not-overriding part of their portfolio. Your 5-10% range seems to fit in well here. Lastly, and to my taste, over-the-top, are the gold-gold-gold investors, that seem to believe it is the panacea for all market woes. I always suspect that investment gurus that are pushing this, however, have large positions that they are trying to run up so they can unload. Given all this, I am not aware of any general rule about gold, but anything less than 10% would seem like at least a not over-concentration in the one area. Once any one holding gets much beyond that, you should really examine why you believe that it should represent such a large part of your holdings. Good Luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fce119d437797fae452a931d307b949c", "text": "10% is way high unless you really dedicate time to managing your investments. Commodities should be a part of the speculative/aggressive portion of your portfolio, and you should be prepared to lose most or all of that portion of your portfolio. Metals aren't unique enough to justify a specific allocation -- they tend to perform well in a bad economic climate, and should be evaluated periodically. The fallacy in the arguments of gold/silver advocates is that metals have some sort of intrinsic value that protects you. I'm 32, and remember when silver was $3/oz, so I don't know how valid that assertion is. (Also recall the 25% price drop when the CBOE changed silver's margin requirements.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "701044a51a7f47011eb598f92c1ca560", "text": "Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c8627953291d60451d67d6a78b00468", "text": "\"The \"\"conventional wisdom\"\" is that you should have about 5% of your portfolio in gold. But that's an AVERAGE. Meaning that you might want to have 10% at some times (like now) and 0% in the 1980s. Right now, the price of gold has been rising, because of fears of \"\"easing\"\" Fed monetary policy (for the past decade), culminating in recent \"\"quantitative easing.\"\" In the 1980s, you should have had 0% in gold given the fall of gold in 1981 because of Paul Volcker's monetary tightening policies, and other reasons. Why did gold prices drop in 1981? And a word of caution: If you don't understand the impact of \"\"quantitative easing\"\" or \"\"Paul Volcker\"\" on gold prices, you probably shouldn't be buying it.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "f047a86a26ffe9decad612ab2b5ed4e0", "text": "Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.", "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": "aa90a5bbfd6d0baf7ace26b24986c434", "text": "\"The topic you are apparently describing is \"\"safe withdrawal rates\"\", more here. Please, note that the asset allocation is crucial decision with your rates. If you continue to keep a lot in cash, you cannot withdraw too much money \"\"to live and to travel\"\" because the expected return from cash is too low in the long run. In contrast, if you moved to more sensible decision like 30% bonds and 70% world portfolio -- the rates will me a lot different. As you are 30 years old, you could pessimist suppose to live next 100 years -- then your possible withdrawal rates would be much lower than let say over 50 years. Anyway besides deciding asset allocation, you need to estimate the time over which you need your assets. You have currently 24% in liquid cash and 12% in bonds but wait you use the word \"\"variety of funds\"\" with about 150k USD, what are they? Do you have any short-term bonds or TIPS as inflation hedge? Do you miss small and value? What is your sector allocation between small-med-large and value-blend-growth? If you are risk-averse, you could add some value small. Read the site, it does much better job than any question-answer site can do (the link above).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71e043e167ce5c8f12c06fbd1e32f7b6", "text": "\"I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold \"\"shares\"\" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs. This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08cec8c13d6cc51c6f85f6b481c17691", "text": "Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619", "text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2865984a64db25a71c7b3f2c57f1afc5", "text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b", "text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5fb93b7a5cd0209d2b227983b37eb21", "text": "Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54d0a04493a4b5b0306b714af1d5f04c", "text": "\"I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the \"\"The Ivy Portfolio\"\" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ea028386d7b77f54bba0eb3c5e18b8c", "text": "With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.", "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": "2fa005e6b96c5bef7f326c418e9c9f03", "text": "Putting 64% of a portfolio in gold and silver is pretty reckless from an investing standpoint. That being said, if he really did buy most of the stocks in 2002, he's probably made a good deal of money off these picks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e769761effd1d77533856624ea79940", "text": "If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e9cebde4465fbb20cb434e8b71958d4", "text": "First, a margin account is required to trade options. If you buy a put, you have the right to deliver 100 shares at a fixed price, 50 can be yours, 50, you'll buy at the market. If you sell a put, you are obligated to buy the shares if put to you. All options are for 100 shares, I am unaware of any partial contract for fewer shares. Not sure what you mean by leveraging the position, can you spell it out more clearly?", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
b37f3268bedc2a23bfd77e4b9dd366ea
How could the 14th amendment relate to the US gov't debt ceiling crisis?
[ { "docid": "52b7ade0d669c383ccde847428fc5906", "text": "It's a disturbing development -- someone is floating the idea that the executive has the ability to issue debt without the consent of congress to measure the public's reaction. Why disturbing? Because people are using language like this: The president, moreover, can move quickly, but court cases take time. “At the point at which the economy is melting down, who cares what the Supreme Court is going to say?” Professor Balkin said. “It’s the president’s duty to save the Republic.” The implication to your personal finances is that we continue to live in interesting times, and you need to be aware of the downside risks that your investments are exposed to. If your portfolio is built around the idea that US government obligations are risk-free, you need to rethink that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfd53d7422443fe7ce9beb33431fdd20", "text": "Section Four of the amendment reads: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. In other words, if President Obama wants to, he could unilaterally invoke this provision and go ahead and get the money he needs. Good articles describing this in some detail can be found here and here.", "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": "da65d37e11ced3265657280ccf9478aa", "text": "\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \"\"National Debt\"\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \"\"Bonds\"\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\"\"Default\"\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecbce6fb051a2cb6791038ba17979cbf", "text": "There is no situation one can imagine in which the US defaults (beyond a day or three) on its obligations. The treasury can print money, and while it would be disastrous, 'monetizing' the debt would simply eliminate all outstanding debt at the risk of devaluing the dollar to hyperinflation levels.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b87cae29259c5c62ab0fca7e87a9cad6", "text": "This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit. - [/r/bestof] [/u/78fivealive explains the debt crisis in Argentina as &amp;quot;A Streetcar Named Desire.&amp;quot;](http://np.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2cb2qi/u78fivealive_explains_the_debt_crisis_in/) *^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? [^Message ^me ^here.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmeta_bot_mailbag)*", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c9c74fa50ed2ed5bcf803fbb7cc7b79", "text": "*1. Apple - holding over 100b cash in their vault more than any banks have in their reserves in the world and more than enough to pay off all of the debts of the U.S.* There is $14 trillion in US government debt. You're off by a couple of orders of magnitude.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3e7ce465f548c6e9267465db1883bc5", "text": "I love the constant denial on this site that mounting debt is an issue. By the way, this is an insult and not an invitation for a discussion. I really don't give a fuck what you or u/geerusell think on the issue. You are both total fucking idiots with your bullshit Keynesian views.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49086f0c6e406fb9f1ab0e99b5930e04", "text": "\"They also ignored bankruptcy law and gave a large part of the New GM to the unions when it should belong to the bondholders. Or if the bondholders are getting wiped out, it should belong 100% to the US Government. Theoretically you need the legislative or judiciary branches to back such actions, but in practice it doesn't always happen. Or when Obama tanked the Las Vegas tourism industry when he took at shot at the \"\"fat cats\"\" and the next day all the executives cancelled their corporate events in Vegas because they wanted to get out of the line of fire.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61bbfe419b10a8b75e647ebabeaa7088", "text": "\"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? In 1847 four states - Mississippi, Arkansas, Michigan, and Florida - failed to pay all or some of their debts. All of these states had issued debt to invest in banks. From the detailed source listed below: \"\"...it should be remembered that all cases of state debt repudiation, as contrasted with mere default, involved banks.\"\" Jackson had killed the federal central bank 10 years earlier and the states were trying to create their own inflationary central banks. Six other states delayed debt payments from three to six years (source, page 103, this source has more details). This is the only case I know of where US states defaulted. US cities default more frequently. I'm very confused do US single states like IOWA have debt and emits obligations on their own like Italy does in EU? Yes. Individual states can issue their own bonds. Oh, and just another little thing I would like to know, is Dollar a fiat currency too like the Euro? Yes, the US dollar is a fiat currency. I think the better question is: \"\"Is there any currency that is not a fiat currency?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36f0aa576a684067f2caf20a9a3af0f0", "text": "govt debt and money printing is nothing to the amount of debt in circulation in the private sector (41 trillion). it was the private sector that created the inflation and bubbles. giving students 1 trilion to pay off all student loans isn't inflationary, it would be deflationary. because the banks created the credit out of thin air to lend to the students for college, if you pay it back, it closes the circuit. Govt would have 1 trilion in debt, but that's nothing, only a trilion dollars. it can get paid back in tax revenue from economic recovering by the private sector no longer burdened by debt.", "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": "d0639d406a8990b39b5ae168d9ebf638", "text": "There no legal framework that allows states like the US or countries in Europe to default on their debt. Should congress pass a law to default the US supreme court is likely to nullify the law.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edfaea8b74131376f39df1847e966ad5", "text": "It's misleading news. Comparing debt levels in nominal terms is completely pointless over a period of more than a few months. The article you responded to quite literally quoted extracts from the article you subsequently posted and explained why they were misleading or incorrect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5c88c5babbd9efce0d5539f9d5fa6fc", "text": "Did you read the article? They weren't arguing whether or not the debt could be defaulted on. They were arguing that one side can't unilaterally change the terms of the contract and decide to pay less. Which seems like common sense, but whatever.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57904482f79435e2e4f514c6c20f95a3", "text": "They're not going to do anything about it. Washington needs the debt wheel to keep spinning, or the Dollar will lose its position as the Reserve Currency. Then all hell would break loose. Powerful countries like Japan are going to have to take the initiative. And apparently they are starting to. It has to be countries like Japan because if a weak country tries this, they'll get invaded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea4474b5df1689eaee2874460986af65", "text": "Millions of Americans are affected by this. Millions of Americans live in debt, through credit cards and other sources that depend on these scumbaggers. Yet, the media picks it up, due to necessity, and drops it faster than a wide receiver with no hands.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
56d67cc0a4ae98a2c1e6e69d7ada2287
I have an extra 1000€ per month, what should I do with it?
[ { "docid": "666d777385bd1d7382048ddb3963c111", "text": "I'm almost in the same situation as you. Here is what I'm doing. Buy ETFs each time you have above 3000€ saved up. I buy these: HSBC S+P 500 C.S.-MSCI PACIFIC UBS-ETF-MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ISH.STOX.EUROPE 600 They are taxable under Abgeltungssteuer, so no hassle with that, are cheap and cover almost the entire world economy. Don't worry what everyone else is doing. My friends all started buying stuff when they started earning real money. Now everyone has shitloads of stuff piled up somewhere, which never gets used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce67213c02975c72d0ddd432803db58a", "text": "1: Low fees means: a Total Expense Ratio of less than 0,5%. One detail you may also want to pay attention to whether the fund reinvests returns (Thesaurierender Fonds) which is basically good for investing, but if it's also a foreign-based fund then taxes get complicated, see http://www.finanztip.de/indexfonds-etf/thesaurierende-fonds/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31eb14798fa124a9d56118dfc3f58f28", "text": "Lots of good advice on investing already. You may also want to think about two things: A Bausparvertrag. You can set this up for different monthly saving rates. You'll get a modest interest payment, and once you have saved up enough (the contract is zuteilungsreif), you will be eligible for a loan at a low rate. However, you can only use the loan for building, buying or renovating real estate. With interest rates as low as they are right now, this is not overly attractive. However, depending on your salary, you may qualify for subsidies, and these could indeed be rather attractive. This may be helpful (in German). A Riester-Rente. This is a subsidized saving scheme - you save something every year and again get subsidies at the end of the year. I think the salary thresholds where you qualify for a subsidy are a bit higher for the Riester-Rente than for a Bausparvertrag, and even if you don't qualify for a subsidy, your contributions will be deducted from your taxable income. I wouldn't invest all my leftover money in these, considering that you commit yourself for the medium to long term, but they might well be attractive options for at least part of your money, say 20-25% of what you aim at saving every month. Finally, as others have written: banks and insurance companies exist to make money, and they live off their provisions. Get an independent financial advisor you pay by the hour, who doesn't get provisions, and have him help you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c141d68ca0b0fec7fc97ce49d4665f8c", "text": "Congratulations on getting started in life! John Malloy's (American) research suggests that you should take some time to get used to living on your own, make some friends, and settle into your community. During this time, you can build up an emergency fund. If/when the stock markets do not seem to be in a bear market, you can follow user3771352's advice to buy stock ETFs. Do you hope to get married and have children in the next few years? If so, you should budget time and money for activities where you make new friends (both men and women). Malloy points out that many Americans meet their spouses through women's networks of friends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a15288202efc7737369c6b1b2bf40577", "text": "\"First check: Do you have all the insurances you need? The two insurances everyone should have are: Another insurance you might want to get is a contents insurance (\"\"Hausratsversicherung\"\"). But if you don't own any super-expensive furniture or artworks, you might also opt to self-insure and cover it with: Priority 2: Emergency fund. Due to the excellent healthcare and welfare system in Germany, this is not as important as in many other countries. But knowing that you have a few thousand € laying around in liquid assets in case something expensive breaks down can really help you sleep at night. If you decide not to pay for contents insurance, calculate what it would cost you if there is a fire in your apartment and you would have to replace everything. That's how large your emergency fund needs to be. You also need a larger emergency fund if you are a homeowner, because as a homeowner there might always be an emergency repair you have to pay for. Priority 3: Retirement. Unless there will be some serious retirement reforms in the next 40 years (and I would not bet on that!), the government-provided pension will not be enough to cover your lifestyle cost. If you don't want to suffer from poverty as a senior citizen you will have to build up a retirement plan now. Check which options your company provides (\"\"Betriebliche Altersvorsorge\"\") and what retirement options you have which give you free money from the government (\"\"Riester-Rente\"\"). Getting professional advise to compare all the options with each other can be really beneficial. Priority 4: Save for a home. In the long-run, owning a home is much cheaper than renting one. Paying of a mortgage is just like paying rent - but with the difference that the money you pay every month isn't spent. Most of it (minus interest and building maintenance costs) stays your capital! At one point you will have paid it off and then you never have to pay rent in your life. It even secures the financial future of your children and grandchildren, who will inherit your home. But few banks will give you a good interest rate if you have no own capital at all. So you should start saving money now. Invest a few hundred € every month in a long-term portfolio. You might also get some additional free money for this purpose from your employer (\"\"Vermögenswirksame Leistungen\"\").\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95f6f1ef4ca819dafd3029e8a868cdfa", "text": "\"What about getting the saving account - \"\"Bausparen\"\" (~100EUR/month) which you can later use for credit to get better mortgage deal and to buy a flat for renting to others (Anlegerwohnung)?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94e4d5ca28ad25d8016392b2891ba804", "text": "\"As many before me said but will say again for the sake of completeness of an answer: First off provision to have an emergency fund of 6 months living expenses to cover loss of employment, unforeseen medical issues etc. When that is done you re free to start investing. Do remember that putting all your eggs in one basket enable risks, so diversify your portfolio and diversify even within each investment vehicle. Stocks: I would personally stay away from stocks as it's for the most part a bear market right now (and I assume you re not interested day-trading to make any short term return) and most importantly you dont mention any trading experience which means you can get shafted. Mutual Funds: Long story short most of these work; mainly for the benefit for their management and people selling them. Bonds Instead, I would go for corporate bonds where you essentially buy the seller(aka the issuing company) and unlike gambling on stocks of the same company, you dont rely on speculation and stock gains to make a profit. As long as the company is standing when the bond matures you get your payment. This allows you to invest with less effort spent on a daily basis to monitor your investments and much better returns(especially if you find opportunities where you can buy bonds from structurally sound companies that have for reasons you deem irrelevant, purchase prices in the secondary market for cents in the dollar) than your other long term \"\"stable options\"\" like German issued bonds or saving accounts that are low in general and more so like in the current situation for German banks. Cryptocurrency I would also look into cryptocurrency for the long term as that seems to be past its childhood diseases and its also a good period of time to invest in as even the blue chips of that market are down party due to correction from all time highs and partly due to speculation. As Im more knowledgeable on this than German-locale bonds, a few coins I suggest you look into and decide for yourself would be the obvious ETH & BTC, then a slew of newer ones including but not limited to OmiseGO, Tenx(Pay), Augur and IOTA. Beware though, make sure to understand the basics of security and good practices on this field, as there's no central bank in this sector and if you leave funds in an exchange or your wallet's private key is compromised the money are as good as gone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb87f734f496f7e34c6823d06400e3c0", "text": "If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "add28a96715300773baecd48463ce3ef", "text": "People have asked a lot of good questions about your broader situation, tolerance for risk, etc, but I'm going to say the one-size-fits-most answer is: split some of your monthly savings (half?) into the VEU Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF and some into VTI Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF. This can be as automatic and hassle-free as the money market deposit and gives a possibility of getting a better return, with low costs and low avoidable risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d07420bb79af890119995e24bcf52cb", "text": "It depends on your bank and the details in the agreement, but typically, interest is calculated daily. So if you borrow 1000 EUR for 1 day, you pay 15% * 1000 EUR * 1/360 = 42 Cent (41.666667 cent to be exact). You can simply multiply these 42 cent up with the number of days you plan and the number of 1000s EUR. Note that weekend days count too, even if you cannot pay them back on the weekend. The exact value will be very slightly different, as the interest is added monthly to the principal, and there is compound interest on the interest. Banks also often consider all months 30 days long for interest calculations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a3b5dba9f57e8cd65d2b20b9781823e", "text": "\"Frequently selling and buying properties is generally not advisable in Germany due to the high cost for property purchase tax (\"\"Grunderwerbssteuer\"\") and land registration fees (\"\"Grundbucheintrag\"\"). You can generally assume that ever time you trade homes, you pay about 10% extra. So it is likely a good idea to keep your property and rent it out while you don't need it so you can use the rent to pay for your new room. That's especially true if you expect the property to increase in value. Also, due to the low interest rate right now, real estate is practically the only good capital investment. A 85k asset which makes you 4.8k each year is a return of investment of 5.6%*. Any financial asset promising you that kind of dividend at the moment is likely equivalent to gambling. * yes, I ignored maintenance costs, but it's still a really good deal. If you want to rent out your flat as stress-free as possible, give it to a property management company (\"\"Hausverwalter\"\"). In exchange for a percentage of the monthly rent they will take care of all the small stuff (like hiring handymen to fix broken toilets). You might still have to pay for really expensive investments, though (like replacing a leaking roof). But when something like that happens, you should have no issue to finance it with a loan because you have a real estate as a security. However, keep in mind that the German tenancy law might make it difficult (but not impossible) to get rid of the tenant in case you want to move back into the apartment. Google \"\"Mietrecht Eigenbedarf\"\" for more details. Should you decide after your study that you don't want to move back, you can always sell the flat with the tenant. But rented properties usually get far lower prices on the real estate market than empty ones. Regarding covering your cost of living besides rent during your studies: If you are eligible for BAföG (state-sponsored student loan), you should take it, because it's an offer simply too good to refuse. It's literally free money. But unfortunately you are not, because you own too much real estate wealth you are not living in. But you should ask your bank for a loan backed by said property. That way you will likely pay far less interest than with a regular private student loan which isn't backed by anything except the hope for a relevant degree.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "4ac2c64ce70259bde39978411a151518", "text": "\"with 150K € to invest to \"\"become a landlord\"\" you have several options: Pay for 100% of one property, and you then will make a significant percentage of the monthly rent as profit each month. That profit can be used to invest in other things, or to save to buy additional properties. At the end of the 21 years in your example, you can sell the flat for return of principal minus selling expenses, or even better make a profit because the property went up in value. Pay 20% down on 5 flats, and then make a much a smaller profit per flat each month due to the mortgage payment for each one. At the end of the 21 years sell the flats. Assuming that a significant portion of the mortgage is paid off each flat will sell for more than the mortgage balance. Thus you will have 5 nice large profits when you sell. something in between 1 and 5 flats. Each has different risks and expenses. With 5 rental properties you are more likely to use a management company, which will add to your monthly cost.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85ef54507d2fada1a6364d888462df4f", "text": "I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd get rid of the extra car and do everything I could in the following months to repay the emergency fund. Even without the interest payments, I'd consider getting rid of an unused car due to the very nature of a car being a depreciating asset that has insurance expenses and annual registration fees on top of that depreciation. The one exception to the above would be a classic car that was purchased for an investment that is always garaged and doesn't need to be registered for road use. I take it for granted that most people who can afford such investments don't need my advice about when to sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4b7a84d38a6e0206518d8453f5ea09a", "text": "For one, the startup doesn't exist yet, so until March I will get nothing on hand, though I have enough reserves to bridge that time. I would not take this deal unless the start-up exists in some form. If it's just not yet profitable, then there's a risk/reward to consider. If it doesn't exist at all, then it cannot make a legal obligation to you and it's not worth taking the deal yet. If everything else is an acceptable risk to you, then you should be asking the other party to create the company and formalize the agreement with you. As regards reserves, if you're really getting paid in shares instead of cash, then you may need them later. Shares in a start-up likely are not easy to sell (if you're allowed to sell them at all), so it may be a while before a paycheck given what you've described. For a second, who pays the tax? This is my first non-university job so I don't exactly know, but usually the employer has to/does pay my taxes and some other stuff from my brutto-income (that's what I understood). If brutto=netto, where is the tax? This I cannot answer for Germany. In the U.S. it would depend in part on how the company is organized. It's likely that some or all of the tax will be deferred until you monetize your shares, but you should get some professional advice on that before you move forward. As an example, it's likely that you'd get taxed (in part or in whole) on what we'd call capital gains (maybe Abgeltungsteuer in German?) that would only be assessed when you sell the shares. For third, shares are a risk. If I or any other in the startup screw really, my pay might be a lot less than expected. Of course, if it works out I'm rich(er). This is the inherent risk of a start-up, so there's no getting around the fact that there's a chance that the business may fail and your shares become worthless. Up to you if you think the risk is acceptable. Where you can mitigate risk is in ensuring that there's a well-written and enforceable set of documents that define what rights go with the shares, who controls the company, how profits will be distributed, etc. Don't do this by spoken agreement only. Get it all written down, and then get it checked by a lawyer representing your interests.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c9b27a19b0086ba941085e3b3ad0c19", "text": "\"A couple of thoughts and experiences (Germany/Italy): First of all, I recommend talking to the Belgian bank (and possibly to a Dutch bank of your choice). I have similar conditions for my German bank accounts. But even though they talk about it as salary account (\"\"Gehaltskonto\"\") all they really ask for is a monthly inflow of more than xxxx € - which can be satisfied with an automatic direct transfer (I have some money automatically circulating for this reason which \"\"earns\"\" about 4% p.a. by saving fees). In that case it may be a feasible way to have a Belgian and a Dutch bank account and set up some money circulation. Experiences working in Italy (some years ago, SEPA payments were kind of new and the debits weren't implemented then): My guess with your service providers is that they are allowed to offer you contracts that are bound to rather arbitrary payment conditions. After all, you probably can also get a prepaid phone or a contract with a bill that you can then pay by wire transfer - however, AFAIK they are allowed to offer discounts/ask fees for different payment methods. Just like there is no law that forces the store around your corner to accept credit cards or even large EUR denominations as long as they tell you so beforehand. AFAIK, there is EU regulation saying your bank isn't allowed to charge you more for wire transger to foreign country within the SEPA zone than a national wire transfer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9e79c3970a82e9d968dd3eaf9229e54", "text": "\"This is the kind of scenario addressed by Reddit's /r/personalfinance Prime Directive, or \"\"I have $X, what should I do with it?\"\" It follows a fairly linear flowchart for personal spending beginning with a budget and essential costs. The gist of the flowchart is to cover your most immediate costs and risks first, while also maximizing your benefits. It sounds like you would fall somewhere around steps 1 and 3. (Step 2 won't apply since this is not pretax income.) If you don't already have at least $1000 reserved in an emergency fund, that's a great place to start. After that, you'll want to use the rest to pay down your debt. Your credit card debt is very high interest and should be treated as a financial emergency. Besides the balance of your gift, you may want to throw whatever other funds you have saved beyond one month's expenses at this problem. As far as which card, since you have multiple debts you're faced with the classic choice of which payoff method to use: snowball (lowest balance first) or avalanche (highest interest rate first). Avalanche is more financially optimal but less immediately gratifying. Personally, since your 26% APR debt is so large and so high interest, I would recommend focusing every available penny on that card until it is paid off, and then never use it again. Again, per the flowchart, that means using everything left over after steps 0-2 are fulfilled.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af738cb9cc41c09d0b1ad2e8d0738a76", "text": "I started this off as a comment to Joe's answer, but it got rather messy in that form so I'll just post it as a separate answer instead. I suggest that you read Joe's answer first. I believe you are overthinking this. First, you really should be discussing the matter with your girlfriend. We can provide suggestions, but only the two of you can decide what feels right for the two of you. Strangers on the Internet can never have as complete a picture of your financial situations, your plans, and your personalities, as the two of you together. That said, here's a starting point that I would use as input to such a discussion: As you can see, a common theme to all of this is transparency and communication. There is a reason for this: a marriage without proper communication can never work out well in the long term. I don't know about Germany specifically, but disagreements about money tends to be a major reason in couples splitting up. By setting your lives up for transparency in money matters from the beginning, you significantly reduce the risk of this happening to you. Scott Hanselman discusses a very similar way of doing things, but phrases it differently, in Relationship Hacks: An Allowance System for Adults.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a4101d422ea1202cbc43ffd2a8abbf0", "text": "Are you going to South Africa or from? (Looking on your profile for this info.) If you're going to South Africa, you could do worse than to buy five or six one-ounce krugerrands. Maybe wait until next year to buy a few; you may get a slightly better deal. Not only is it gold, it's minted by that country, so it's easier to liquidate should you need to. Plus, they go for a smaller premium in the US than some other forms of gold. As for the rest of the $100k, I don't know ... either park it in CD ladders or put it in something that benefits if the economy gets worse. (Cheery, ain't I? ;) )", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65b489c3f610de3e3622600f09fb1ab7", "text": "I'm new to this, but how about putting a big part of your money into an MMA? I don't know about your country, but in Germany, some online banks easily offer as much as 2.1% pa, and you can access the money daily. If you want decent profit without risk this is a great deal, much better than most saving accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "838b227c3da49cff164ae00934943043", "text": "Only in terms of inflation Because of inflation, €300 would be worth less in December 2011 than it was in January 2010. Thus, it's to your benefit to pay in monthly installments rather than up-front. Now to calculate the difference in monthly payments of 300 euro using the above webpage what should I do? You'd need to calculate 23 different values: But this is a pointless exercise, since you'd have signed a 24 month lease at a fixed price. Hence, my original comment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18d46b9b3ef3841eb491c2010b2fc9d4", "text": "\"If you're looking for ways to turn $1000 into more, don't just think of ways it can make money -- also consider whether there are any ways you can use it to save money. Among the advantages of this approach is that you're not taxed for reducing your expenditures. The good news is that there are a lot more ways to save a little bit of money on a $1000 budget than there are to make a little money on that budget. The bad news is that most of them will require some additional input: labor. Have you taken an economics course? Capital + Labor => output. I don't know what you spend your money on exactly, but some thoughts: You may find more opportunities for things like this as you move out from college and into your own apartment (/house) and the university isn't taking care of as many of your needs. Just don't confuse yourself about where the line is between actually saving money that you were going to spend anyway, and just consuming more. Consumption is fine in and of itself (and ultimately it's what you have money for) but doesn't make you financially better off. Also, when considering what to do with the money, don't just think \"\"I can spend $2000 on this bike and it will ultimately save me gas money\"\" unless you also know how to think \"\"I could spend $200 on a slightly lesser bike and still save all the gas money, or maybe even spend $20 on a yard sale bike.\"\". Consider borrowing kitchen equipment from the parents, instead of buying new stuff, or buy it at a yard sale. Also, make sure you actually will use the things you buy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0b2c3803926031441d17b0be5547416", "text": "\"You owe no tax on the option transaction in 2015 in this case. How you ultimately get taxed depends on how you dispose of the position. If it expires, then you will have a short-term capital gain on the option position at expiration. If it is exercised, then the option is \"\"gone\"\" for tax purposes and your basis in the underlying is adjusted. From IRS Publication 550: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. In your case, this will be a long-term capital gain. For completeness, if you buy to cover the option back from the market before expiration or exercise, then it is also a short-term capital gain. Also, keep in mind that this all assumes that this covered call is \"\"qualified\"\" so that it does not count as a straddle. You can find more about that in Pub 550. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010630 All of this is for US tax purposes.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
d66f353a4a665150f7ff3d63f2fa517f
What is a good size distribution for buying gold?
[ { "docid": "eddf10b9b6dae95cbbd0441684ab2b0a", "text": "Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d61a663bcd292e04cf34d962b17e03c", "text": "\"Look at a broader diversification. Something like: For physical gold, I'd look at a mix of gold coins and bullion. Study the pricing model for coins -- you'll probably find that the spreads on small coins make them too expensive. There are a few levels of risk with storing in a vault -- the practical risk is that your government will close banks in the event of a panic, and your money will be inaccessible. You need to balance that risk with the risk to your personal security that comes with having lots of gold or cash in your home. My recommendation is to avoid wasting time on the \"\"Mad Max\"\" scenarios. If the world economy collapses into utter ruin, we're all screwed. A few gold coins won't do much for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18d75b8742bef1ec9535145e323209d9", "text": "\"If the \"\"crash\"\" you worry about is a dissolution of the euro, then the main thing you should concern yourself with is liquidity. For that, purchase the most highly liquid gold ETF or futures contract, whichever is more appropriate for the total amount of money involved. Any other way and you will lose a significant chunk of your assets to transaction costs. If, on the other hand, the \"\"crash\"\" you were concerned about were the total collapse of the world economy, and people around the world abandon all paper currencies and resort to barter as a method of trade, then I can see buying several small pieces being a rational strategy, although then I would also question whether you were a sane individual.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b1b4d9b1b9d014f7d6ce32132da3509", "text": "You are really tangling up two questions here: Q1: Given I fear a dissolution of the Euro, is buying physical gold a good response and if so, how much should I buy? I see you separately asked about real estate, and cash, and perhaps other things. Perhaps it would be better to just say: what is the right asset allocation, rather than asking about every thing individually, which will get you partial and perhaps contradictory answers. The short answer, knowing very little about your case, is that some moderate amount of gold (maybe 5-10%, at most 25%) could be a counterbalance to other assets. If you're concerned about government and market stability, you might like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio, which has equal parts stocks, bonds, cash, and gold. Q2: If I want to buy physical gold, what size should I get? One-ounce bullion (about 10 x 10 x 5mm, 30g) is a reasonably small physical size and a reasonable monetary granularity: about $1700 today. I think buying $50 pieces of gold is pointless: However much you want to have in physical gold, buy that many ounces.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "a43b96a974577a49b2762736aabffc13", "text": "\"As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com \"\"Real\"\" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings. That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year. Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit. This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%. If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money. If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400. If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate. Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed. Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal. Also there is often noisy jitter in the price. The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery. Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold. To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6b93d56422824ec67ede47fd8faf611", "text": "Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "701044a51a7f47011eb598f92c1ca560", "text": "Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6b679633154acbe373b9083d360bc67", "text": "No. Bonds don't work like that. When you buy a bond, you buy pieces of notional at a price. 1K denotes the amount you would get back at maturity (+ coupons), So the smallest piece size would be 1k. I've even seen 50K plus but thats for more illiquid products....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8736d56777f6b7edd7ee1522b2e2547d", "text": "It's extremely divisible. The smallest unit is 0.00000001 BTC. This smallest unit is called a satoshi, after the pseudonym of the inventor of Bitcoin. I suggested to my friends and family back in mid 2015 that they invest a little of their money. Nobody did. Back then I bought 21 BTC at around $600 USD/BTC for a total value of slightly less than $13k USD. Currently it's worth over $90k. I can't tell you how many of them say they wish they had listened to me. Then when I tell them they should still buy they think it's too late. It's not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "250e59e43c4663a659e26028f92aa583", "text": "I would track it using a regular asset account. The same way I would track the value of a house, a car, or any other personal asset. ETA: If you want automatic tracking, you could set it up as a stock portfolio holding shares of the GLD ETF. One share of GLD represents 1/10 ounce of gold. So, if you have 5 ounces of gold, you would set that up in Quicken as 50 shares of GLD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5fc1225abe1e6651a20b3d8eea0eab7", "text": "\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fbbb410b7ff1fb7eba4f60c84daad3f", "text": "There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "831c8f232d1346bee6ed25d4c736aa80", "text": "It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c5b9db4c3291be7f58d5a8b1126bda4", "text": "Gold is classified as a collectible so the gain rates are as follows: So you'd report a gain of $100 or $1,000 , depending on which coin you sold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f87e691cf0d2cbc4dbe43f3e6a856f8b", "text": "\"In addition to the possibility of buying gold ETFs or tradable certificates, there are also firms specializing in providing \"\"bank accounts\"\" of sorts which are denominated in units of weight of precious metal. While these usually charge some fees, they do meet your criteria of being able to buy and sell precious metals without needing to store them yourself; also, these fees are likely lower than similar storage arranged by yourself. Depending on the specifics, they may also make buying small amounts practical (buying small amounts of physical precious metals usually comes with a large mark-up over the spot price, sometimes to the tune of a 50% or so immediate loss if you buy and then immediately sell). Do note that, as pointed out by John Bensin, buying gold gets you an amount of metal, the local currency value of which will vary over time, sometimes wildly, so it is not the same thing as depositing the original amount of money in a bank account. Since 2006, the price of an ounce (about 31.1 grams) of gold has gone from under $500 US to over $1800 US to under $1100 US. Few other investment classes are anywhere near this volatile. If you are interested in this type of service, you might want to check out BitGold (not the same thing at all as Bitcoin) or GoldMoney. (I am not affiliated with either.) Make sure to do your research thoroughly as these may or may not be covered by the same regulations as regular banks, particularly if you choose a company based outside of or a storage location outside of your own country.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2ad1073731e8909e52ab00388e1e62a", "text": "ETF's are great products for investing in GOLD. Depending on where you are there are also leveraged products such as CFD's (Contracts For Difference) which may be more suitable for your budget. I would stick with the big CFD providers as they offer very liquid products with tight spreads. Some CFD providers are MarketMakers whilst others provide DMA products. Futures contracts are great leveraged products but can be very volatile and like any leveraged product (such as some ETF's and most CFD's), you must be aware of the risks involved in controlling such a large position for such a small outlay. There also ETN's (Exchange Traded Notes) which are debt products issued by banks (or an underwriter), but these are subject to fees when the note matures. You will also find pooled (unallocated to physical bullion) certificates sold through many gold institutions although you will often pay a small premium for their services (some are very attractive, others have a markup worse than the example of your gold coin). (Note from JoeT - CFDs are not authorized for trading in the US)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b69187cb5be0290794bbdd55916a4d36", "text": "Gold is traded on the London stock exchange (LSE) and the New York stock exchange (NYSE) under various separate asset tickers, mainly denominated in sterling and US dollars respectively. These stocks will reflect FX changes very quickly. If you sold LSE gold and foreign exchanged your sterling to dollars to buy NYSE gold you would almost certainly lose on the spreads upon selling, FX'ing and re-buying. In short, the same asset doesn't exist in multiple currencies. It may have the same International Securities Identification Number (ISIN), but it can trade with different Stock Exchange Daily Official List (SEDOL) identifiers, reflecting different currencies and/or exchanges, each carrying a different price at any one time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58449f8023032c3e88340a3a6ff677d6", "text": "Redditors! Buy gold and demand that the financial institution who sold it deliver it. When they try to buy enough gold to cover their short the price will explode, free money. Disclaimer: you all have to do it or it won't work", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afafec3ae79fa797fcb2e00de3988080", "text": "For reporting purposes, I would treat the purchase and sale of gold like a purchase and sale of a stock. The place to do so is Schedule D. (And if it's the wrong form, but you reported it, there is might not be a penalty, whereas there is a penalty for NOT reporting.) The long term gain would be at capital gains rates. The short term gain would be at ordinary income rates. And if you have two coins bought at two different times, you get to choose which one to report (as long as you report the OTHER one when you sell the second coin).", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
cf19b1c5713d0067c22c51e15c3c8b10
What is inflation?
[ { "docid": "5335ecf49cf360aa289d99ecc552d636", "text": "Inflation is basically this: Over time, prices go up! I will now address the 3 points you have listed. Suppose over a period of 10 years, prices have doubled. Now suppose 10 years ago I earned $100 and bought a nice pair of shoes. Now today because prices have doubled I would have to earn $200 in order to afford the same pair of shoes. Thus if I want to compare my earnings this year to 10 years ago, I will need to adjust for the price of goods going up. That is, I could say that my $100 earnings 10 years ago is the same as having earned $200 today, or alternatively I could say that my earnings of $200 today is equivalent to having earned $100 10 years ago. This is a difficult question because a car is a depreciating asset, which means the real value of the car will go down in value over time. Let us suppose that inflation doesn't exist and the car you bought for $100 today will depreciate to $90 after 1 year (a 10% depreciation). But because inflation does exist, and all prices will be 0.5% higher in 1 years time, we can calculate the true selling price of the car 1 in year as follows: 0.5% of $90 = 0.005*90 = $0.45 Therefore the car will be $90 + $0.45 = $90.45 in 1 years time. If inflation is low, then the repayments do not get much easier to pay back over time because wages have not risen by as much. Similarly the value of your underlying asset will not increase in value by as much. However as compensation, the interest rates on loans are usually lower when inflation is lower. Therefore generally it is better to get a loan in times of high inflation rather than low inflation, however it really depends on how the much the interest rates are relative to the inflation rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aa25f79257a84fcd385258e82e269d4", "text": "When we speak about a product or service, we generally refer to its value. Currency, while neither a product or service, has its own value. As the value of currency goes down, the price of products bought by that currency will go up. You could consider the price of a product or service the value of the product multiplied by the value of the currency. For your first example, we compare two cars, one bought in 1990, and one bought in 2015. Each car has the same features (AC, radio, ABS, etc). We can say that, when these products were new, each had the same value. However, we can deduce that since the 1990 car cost $100, and the 2015 car cost $400, that there has been 75% inflation over 25 years. Comparing prices over time helps identify the inflation (or devaluation of currency) that an economy is experiencing. In regards to your second question, you can say that there was 7% inflation over five years (total). Keep in mind that these are absolute cumulative values. It doesn't mean that there was a 7% increase year over year (that would be 35% inflation over five years), but simply that the absolute value of the dollar has changed 7% over those five years. The sum of the percentages over those five years will be less than 7%, because inflation is measured yearly, but the total cumulative change is 7% from the original value. To put that in perspective, say that you have $100 in 2010, with an expected 7% inflation by 2015, which means that your $100 will be worth $93 in 2015. This means that the yearly inflation would be about 1.5% for five years, resulting in a total of 7% inflation over five years. Note that you still have a hundred dollar bill in your pocket that you've saved for five years, but now that money can buy less product. For example, if you say that $100 buys 50 gallons of gasoline ($2/gallon) in 2010, you will only be able to afford 46.5 gallons with that same bill in 2015 ($2.15/gallon). As you can see, the 7% inflation caused a 7% increase in gasoline prices. In other words, if the value of the car remained the same, its actual price would go up, because the value stayed the same. However, it's more likely that the car's value will decrease significantly in those five years (perhaps as much as 50% or more in some cases), but its price would be higher than it would have been without inflation. If the car's value had dropped 50% (so $50 in original year prices), then it would have a higher price (50 value * 1.07 currency ratio = $53.50). Note that even though its value has decreased by half, its price has not decreased by 50%, because it was hoisted up by inflation. For your final question, the purpose of a loan is so that the loaner will make a profit from the transaction. Consider your prior example where there was 7% inflation over five years. That means that a loan for $100 in 2010 would only be worth $93 in 2015. Interest is how loans combat this loss of value (as well as to earn some profit), so if the loaner expects 7% inflation over five years, they'll charge some higher interest (say 8-10%, or even more), so that when you pay them back on time, they'll come out ahead, or they might use more advanced schemes, like adjustable rates, etc. So, interest rates will naturally be lower when forecasted inflation is lower, and higher when forecasted inflation is higher. The best time to get a loan is when interest rates are low-- if you get locked into a high interest loan and inflation stalls, they will make more money off of you (because the currency has more value), while if inflation skyrockets, your loan will be worth less to loaner. However, they're usually really good about predicting inflation, so it would take an incredible amount of inflation to actually come out on top of a loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34060d3921cc0c6976e1142169c5a267", "text": "Inflation refers to the money supply. Think of all money being air in a balloon. Inflation is what happens when you blow more air in the balloon. Deflation is what happens when you let air escape. Inflation may cause prices to go up. However there are many scenarios possible in which this does not happen. For example, at the same time of inflation, there might be unemployment, making consumers unable to pay higher prices. Or some important resource (oil) may go down in price (due to political reasons, war has ended etc), compensating for the money having less value. Similarly, peoples wages will tend to rise over time. They have to, otherwise everyone would be earning less, due to inflation. However again there are many scenarios in which wages do not keep up with inflation, or rise much faster. In fact over the past 40 years or so, US wages have not been able to keep up with inflation, making the average worker 'poorer' than 40 years ago. At its core, inflation refers to the value of the money itself. As all values of other products, services, assets etc are expressed in terms of money which itself also changes value, this can quickly become very complex. Most countries calculate inflation by averaging the price change of a basket of goods that are supposed to represent the average Joe's spending pattern. However these methods are often criticized as they would be 'hiding' inflation. The hidden inflation may come back later to bite us.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de76dd8be879644dd6aff119fe53a486", "text": "Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c75a8d1f2f8b4a731c590e22495c2513", "text": "I've seen a lot of long and complicated answers here so here is my simple and short answer: Let's say the economy consists of: 10 apples and 10$. Then an apple costs 1$. If you print 10$ more you have: 10 apples and 20$. Then an apple costs 2$. That is it! It's not what Kenshin said: Over time, prices go up! However I would like to add something more on the topic: inflation is theft! If I hack the bank and steal 10% from each account it's obvious that it is theft. It's a bit less obvious when the government prints out money and people loose 10% of the value in their bank accounts but the end result is the same. Final note: some may disagree but I do not consider inflation when 5 of the apples rot and you have: 5 apples and 10$ and an apple now costs 2$. This is a drop in supply and if the demand stays the same prices will rise.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "1c147ee4797cb064aa705248103a9bd3", "text": "&gt; *I fail to see how moderate inflation is a bad thing* The purchasing power of the currency slowly erodes, which means people's savings melt away. So people are forced to invest into something they don't really understand and something that is completely rigged, instead of just having their savings in a currency. [USD purchasing power](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg6FMpNGpM/Ta9ICcEMonI/AAAAAAAABBM/UoQG8vxtBX0/s1600/U.S.%2BDollar%2BPurchasing%2BPower.jpg).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5006e159057eb54f759199c5b603f5f", "text": "There's a difference between physical currency and money (For example a bank may only hold only a small percentage of total deposits as cash that it's customers can withdraw). I'm not sure which you're referring to, but either way you should read about inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "685969de8f725ad8bdedd6839e4ee42c", "text": "The general discussion of inflation centers on money as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is impossible to discuss inflation without considering time, since it is a comparison between the balance between money and goods at two points in time. The whole point of using money, rather than bartering goods, is to have a medium of exchange. Having money, you are interested in the buying power of the money in general more than the relative price of a specific commodity. If some supply distortion causes a shortage of tobacco, or gasoline, or rental properties, the price of each will go up. However, if the amount of circulating money is doubled, the price of everything will be bid up because there is more money chasing the same amount of wealth. The persons who get to introduce the additional circulating money will win at the expense of those who already hold cash. Most of the public measures that are used to describe the economy are highly suspect. For example, during the 90s, the federal government ceased using a constant market basket when computing CPI, allowing substitutions. With this, it was no longer possible to make consistent comparisons over time. The so-called Core CPI is even worse, as it excludes food and energy, which is fine provided you don't eat anything or use any energy. Therefore, when discussing CPI, it is important to understand what exactly is being measured and how. Most published statistics understate inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2eb573161fb05e0424582e3be1785ea3", "text": "\"There are several causes of inflation. One is called cost push — that is, if the price of e.g. oil goes up sharply (as it did in the 1970s), it creates inflation by making everything cost more. Another is called demand pull: if labor unions bargain for higher wages (as they did in the 1960s), their wage costs push up prices, especially after they start buying. The kind of inflation that the banks cause is monetary inflation. That is, for every dollar of deposits, they can make $5 or $10 of loans. So even though they don't \"\"print\"\" money (the Fed does) it's as if they did. The result could be the kind of inflation called \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e303c2f2321209f102fd1dbeeba0a4e", "text": "As pointe out by @quid, inflation figures are almost always quoted as a comparison of prices last month, and prices a year ago last month. So 10% inflation in August means that things cost 10% more than they did in August a year ago. This can lead to some perverse conclusions. Consider an imaginary economy where prices stay constant over years. Annualized inflation is zero. Then something happens on January 2nd, 2018. Some crop fails, a foreign cheap source of something becomes unavailable, whatever. Prices rise, permanently, as more expensive sources are used. This is the only disruption to prices. Nothing else goes wrong. So, in February, 2018, the authorities find that prices in January, 2018 rose by 1% over January 2017. Inflation! Politicians pontificate, economists wring their hands, etc. In March, again, prices for February, 2018 are found to be 1% higher than for February, 2017. More wailing... This goes on for months. Every month, inflation (year over year) is unchanged at 1%. Everyone has a theory as to how to stop it... Finally, in February, 2019, there's a change! Prices in January, 2019, were the same as in January 2018. Zero inflation! Everyone takes credit for bringing down inflation...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "213dbbf2fa8d3bf5e88ffd79802cdf75", "text": "https://www.facebook.com/HyperinflatieVenezuela/ we have made a dutch facebook page about the hyper inflation in Venazuela. We would really aprichiate it if you could like it and check it out. even if you're not dutch becaus likes are a part of our grading", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3bc7cbd264efa6c43b887e57c5fbe64", "text": "\"Curious if anyone has any insight here, but isn't it too soon to tell if this will lead to inflation, and purely speculative that we could \"\"do the same\"\", given that we are in a very different set of circumstances?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c4147d5a2bd6edd3b1cc6c2f729528f", "text": "Inflation of the type currently experienced in Argentina is particularly hard to deal with. Also, real estate prices in global cities such as Buenos Aires and even secondary cities have grown significantly. There are no full solutions to this problem, but there are a few things that can really help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23392efb363ee757969743f316d6ba6d", "text": "\"Currently, the quantity theory of money is widely accepted as an accurate model of inflation in the long run. Consequently, there is now broad agreement among economists that in the long run, the inflation rate is essentially dependent on the growth rate of money supply. However, in the short and medium term inflation may be affected by supply and demand pressures in the economy, and influenced by the relative elasticity of wages, prices and interest rates - Wikipedia: Inflation causes You also asked \"\"can you give any reference that explains that this [encouraging people to work] is one of the reasons government prints money?\"\" See the list of positive effects of inflation in that article.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a747f397b3e354d4128fc189b485e4c1", "text": "First off, inflation doesn't necessarily imply that goods and services will rise in price. The amount of goods &amp; services increases over time as well, and this is balanced (partly), by an increase in the money supply. Without inflation you lose the incentive to invest, as your dollar would become more valuable over time. Why invest in a risky venture if I know that my dollar will buy more if I just wait it out. Might as well stick the money under the mattress. (This is bad)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1979927d31a02180125fb2ab9be92ef5", "text": "I'm not sure that the deflation will occur regardless of policy choice. There is a clear choice: inflation through printing or some sort of sustained deflation/deleveraging. I'd actually venture to guess that the powers-that-be are clearly on the side of printing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f573cc1a292826d1bce978f3d56e90e9", "text": "\"Sensitive topic ;) Inflation is a consequence of the mismatch between supply and demand. In an ideal world the amount of goods available would exactly match the demand for those goods. We don't live in an ideal world. One example of oversupply is dollar stores where you can buy remainders from companies that misjudged demand. Most recently we've seen wheat prices rise as fires outside Moscow damaged the harvest and the Russian government banned exports. And that introduces the danger of inflation. Inflation is a signal, like the pain you feel after an injury. If you simply took a painkiller you may completely ignore a broken leg until gangrene took your life. Governments sometimes \"\"ban\"\" inflation by fixing prices. Both the Zimbabwean and Venezuelan governments have tried this recently. The consequence of that is goods become unavailable as producers refuse to create supply for less than the cost of production. As CrimonsX pointed out, governments do desperately want to avoid deflation as much as they want to avoid hyperinflation. There is a \"\"correct\"\" level and that has resulted in the monetary policy called \"\"Inflation targetting\"\" where central banks attempt to manage inflation into a target range (usually around 2% to 6%). The reason is simply that limited inflation drives investment and consumption. With a guaranteed return on investment people with cash will lend it to people with ideas. Consumers will buy goods today if they fear that the price will rise tomorrow. If prices fall (as they have done during the two decades of deflation in Japan) then the result is lower levels of investment and employment as companies cut production capacity. If prices rise to quickly (as in Zimbabwe and Venezuela) then people cannot save enough or earn enough and so their wealth is drained away. Add to this the continual process of innovation and you see how difficult it is to manage inflation at all. Innovation can result in increased efficiency which can reduce prices. It can also result in a new product which is sufficiently unique to allow predatory pricing (the Apple iPhone, new types of medicines, and so on). The best mechanism we have for figuring out where money should be invested and who is the best recipient of any good is the price mechanism. Inflation is the signal that investors need to learn how best to manage their efforts. We hide from it at our peril.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af9e3804fe0ba09f7a01b49f444fe670", "text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Low rates and QE were intended to help revive a stalled economy, but unfortunately, demand has not risen, but rather, the velocity of money has dropped like a rock. At some point, we will see the economy recover and the excess money in the system will need to be removed to avoid the inflation you suggest may occur. Of course, as rates rise to a more normal level, the price of all debt will adjust. This question may not be on topic for this board, but if we avoid politics, and keep it close to PF, it might remain.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a70568de6258ac4ff20caf60647f630e", "text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "256c4434e61c8a5fab022809c9b13f24", "text": "Inflation hasn't occurred because the banks aren't using the money created by the central bank buying their debt to lend out more money to the economy. If the economy seems to improve to the point where the banks believe they can make money by lending out more, hyperinflation will occur relatively fast like a dam bursting. The US could emulate Japan by also limiting the ability of banks to lend out money while buying their debt, but this kind of playing with the books doesn't really improve the economy for the normal person.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
9d5c9ab41b96146054dc716cd23e9294
Starting off as an investor
[ { "docid": "61cce25bf7d6e1960d57634868b4996f", "text": "\"You've asked eleven different questions here. Therefore, The first thing I'd recommend is this: Don't panic. Seek answers to your questions systematically, one at a time. Search this site (and others) to see if there are answers to some of them. You're in good shape if for no other reason than you're asking these when you're young. Investing and saving are great things to do, but you also have time going for you. I recommend that you use your \"\"other eight hours per day\"\" to build up other income streams. That potentially will get you far more than a 2% deposit. Any investment can be risky or safe. It depends on both your personal context and that of the larger economy. The best answers will come from your own research and from your advisors (since they will be able to see where you are financially, and in life).\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "6ab0591bd0e809fae8e650352223ec80", "text": "I'm going to be a bit off topic and recommend 'The Only Investment Book You'll Ever Need' by Andrew Tobias. It doesn't start with describe the workings of the stock market. Instead, it starts with making sure you have a budget and have your basic finances in order BEFORE going into the stock market. This may not sound like what you are looking for, but it really is a valuable book to read, even if you think you are all set up in that department.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992d568e9fb89ec12d5ec9d42554e089", "text": "What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9175d6a35bb2a1f359699e4473e2b56", "text": "I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69cbc69ac62683bd3f6e8483896dcb81", "text": "\"You can't get started investing. There are preliminary steps that must be taken prior to beginning to invest: Only once these things are complete can you think about investing. Doing so before hand will only likely lose money in the long run. Figure these steps will take about 2.5 years. So you are 2.5 years from investing. Read now: The Total Money Makeover. It is full of inspiring stories of people that were able to turn things around financially. This is good because it is easy to get discouraged and believe all kind of toxic beliefs about money: The little guy can't get ahead, I always will have a car payment, Its too late, etc... They are all false. Part of the book's resources are budgeting forms and hints on budgeting. Read later: John Bogle on Investing and Bogle on Mutual Funds One additional Item: About you calling yourself a \"\"dummy\"\". Building personal wealth is less about knowledge and more about behavior. The reason you don't have a positive net worth is because of how you behaved, not knowledge. Even sticking a small amount in a savings account each paycheck and not spending it would have allowed you to have a positive net worth at this point in your life. Only by changing behavior can you start to build wealth, investing is only a small component.\"", "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": "1cbb06328a871c3e1d8c77ce2996a65a", "text": "\"You seem to have all your financial bases covered, and others have given you good financial advice, so I will try to give you some non-financial ideas. The first and most important thing is that you are investing with a long time friend, so the dynamics are a lot different that if you had recently met a stranger with an \"\"interesting\"\" new idea. The first thing you need to ask yourself is if your friendship will survive if this thing doesn't go well? You've already said you can afford to lose the money so that's not a worry, but will there be any \"\"recriminations?\"\" The flip side is also true; if the venture succeeds, you should be able to go further with it because he's your friend. You know your friend better (back to grade school) than almost anyone else, so here are some things to ask yourself: What does your friend have that will give him a chance to succeed; tech savvy, a winning personality, a huge rolodex, general business savvy, something else? If your guardian angel had told you that one of your friends was planning to embark on an internet/advertising venture, is this the one you would have guessed? Conversely, knowing that your friend was planning to do a start up, is this the kind of venture you would have guessed? How does \"\"internet\"\" and \"\"advertising\"\" fit in with what you are doing? If this venture succeeds, could it be used to help your professional development and career, maybe as a supplier or customer? Can you see yourself leaving your current job and joining your friend's (now established) company as a vice president or acting as a member of its board of directors, the latter perhaps while pursuing your current career path? Are your other mutual friends investing? Are some of them more tech savvy than you and better able to judge the company's prospects of success? To a certain extent, there is \"\"safety in numbers\"\" and even if there isn't, \"\"misery loves company.\"\" On the upside, would you feel left out if everyone in your crowd caught \"\"the next Microsoft\"\" except you?\"", "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": "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": "e2fee46231608345a1eb985c0a67d440", "text": "You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba6dfeb344202e59f5c6b285133567aa", "text": "A couple of good books I enjoyed and found very understandable (regarding the stock market): As for investment information you can get lost for days in Investopedia. Start in the stock section and click around. The tutorials here (free) give a good introduction to different financial topics. Regarding theoretical knowledge: start with what you know well, like your career or your other interests. You'll get a running start that way. Beyond that, it depends on what area of finance you want to start with. If it's your personal finances, I and a lot of other bloggers write about it all the time. Any of the bloggers on my blogroll (see my profile for the link) will give you a good perspective. If you want to go head first into planning your financial life, take a look at Brett Wilder's The Quiet Millionaire. It's very involved and thorough. And, of course, ask questions here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a55b948c4865ccff37eec744d416be8e", "text": "\"The first thing you have to do is to decided what area in finance you want to get into. For example, investment banking and quant are very different jobs. Learning all the CFA material is useful, so you might as well take the exams too while you are at it. You may be able to get into financial IT or some type of financial programming job. That is one step closer to your goal because at least you will be at a finance company and you can network with people that are in the field. Also, if you want to go into the buy side like I did, I recommend you invest your own money and manage your own portfolio. That way you would have some intimate familiarity with some companies/strategies. You can't get this from a textbook. There is something a little wrong with someone who wants to manage other people's money when he doesn't manage his own. That is a tough sell. You can't be too picky about where you get in. Getting in the door is the most important. I got a lot of quant interviews because I was an engineer. Those interviews consist of a lot of math and brain teaser type questions. For fundamental analyst positions, they will typically want to figure out how you think about businesses/companies. You can typically steer the interview any way you want, which is why I think it is important that you invest your own money. If you say \"\"the largest position I hold is in XYZ company\"\", you can be 99% certain that they will be asking about that investment for the next 15 minutes (at least). That is your opportunity to show how you can add value. Most companies prefer students for entry level, because why hire a guy who is already working in another field when you can get someone fresh? I stood out in the interviews because I could say \"\"I put $50k into this position because...\"\". It's not the only way to do it, but I can only provide you with my anedoctal experience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cedaf444d9364575fc8b93d48e4f984", "text": "This is great. I have a question though. What happens if I have all of the plans for finance mapped out and ready to meet a potential investor, but the idea that I bring with me is not patentable? I certainly would like to get financing and let the investor know what I want to accomplish, but I don't want to give away my idea and have the investor take my idea and run his own company with it. How is this dealt with?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4753e96b4f548f22698fc5e14c9b76d5", "text": "After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a12a08c1ab1f090461328b8bd919817b", "text": "\"Your questions seek answers to specifics, but I feel that you may need more general help. There are two things, I feel, that you need to learn about in the general category of personal finance. Your asking questions about investing, but it is not as important, IMHO, as how you manage your day-to-day operations. For example, you should first learn to budget. In personal finance often times \"\"living on a budget\"\" equates to poor, or low income. That is hardly the case. A budget is a plan on how to spend money. It should be refreshed each and every month and your income should equal your expenses. You might have in your budget a $1200 trip into the city to see a concert, hardly what a low income person should have in theirs. Secondly you need to be deliberate about debt management. For some, they feel that having a car payment and having student loans are a necessary part of life and argue that paying them off is foolish as you can earn more from investments. Others argue for zero debt. I fall in the later. Using and carrying a balance on high interest CCs and having high leases or car payments are just dumb. They are also easy to wander into unless you are deliberate. Third you need to prepare for emergencies. Engineers still get laid off and hurt where they are unable to work. They get sued. Having the proper insurance and sufficient reserves in the bank help prevent debt. Now you can start looking into investments. Start off slow and deliberate with investing. Put some in your company 401K or open some mutual funds on the side. You can read about them and talk with advisers, for free, at Fidelity and Vanguard. Read books from the library. Most of all don't get caught up in too much hype. Things like Forex, options, life insurance, gold/silver, are not investments. They are tools for sales people to make fat commissions off the ignorant. You are fortunate in that Engineers are very likely to retire wealthy. They are part of the second largest demographic of first generation rich. The first is small business owners. To start out I would read Millionaire Next Door and Stop Acting Rich. For a debt free approach to life, check out Financial Peace University (FPU) by Dave Ramsey (video course). His lesson on insurance is excellent. I am an engineer, and my wife a project manager we found FPU life changing and regretted not getting on board sooner. Along these lines we have had some turmoil, recently, that became little more than an inconvenience because we were prepared.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81dc5a3ab1f76785932744c1f2a511a9", "text": "\"I get the sense that this is a \"\"the world is unfair; there's no way I can succeed\"\" question, so let's back up a few steps. Income is the starting point to all of this. That could be a job (or jobs), or running your own business. From there, you can do four things with your income: Obviously Spend and Give do not provide a monetary return - they give a return in other ways, such as quality of life, helping others, etc. Save gives you reserves for future expenses, but it does not provide growth. So that just leaves Invest. You seem to be focused on stock market investments, which you are right, take a very long time to grow, although you can get returns of up to 12% depending on how much volatility you're willing to absorb. But there are other ways to invest. You can invest in yourself by getting a degree or other training to improve your income. You can invest by starting a business, which can dramatically increase your income (in fact, this is the most common path to \"\"millionaire\"\" in the US, and probably in other free markets). You can invest by growing your own existing business. You can invest in someone else's business. You can invest in real estate, that can provide both value appreciation and rental income. So yes, \"\"investment\"\" is a key aspect of wealth building, but it is not limited to just stock market investment. You can also look at reducing expenses in order to have more money to invest. Also keep in mind that investment with higher returns come with higher risk (both in terms of volatility and risk of complete loss), and that borrowing money to invest is almost always unwise, since the interest paid directly reduces the return without reducing the risk.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
4f64ee2da9c309989339a6f2b1a5d4a1
Does gold's value decrease over time due to the fact that it is being continuously mined?
[ { "docid": "630bf7c271b0db68bc21431861cb1da8", "text": "\"does it mean uncontrolled severe deflation/inflation is more likely to occur compared to \"\"normal\"\" currencies such as USD, EUR etc? Look at the chart referenced in the link in your question. It took approximately 50 years for annual production of gold to double from 500 tons to 1000 tons. It took approximately 40 years for annual production to double from 1000 tons to 2000 tons. Compare that to the production of US dollars by the Federal Reserve (see chart below obtained from here). US dollar production doubled in DAYS. Which one do you think will lead to uncontrolled inflation/deflation? Update: Why did I include a chart of the FED's balance sheet? Because this is the way newly printed money is introduced - the FED will purchase something from banks (mortgage-backed securities, US treasuries, etc.) with newly printed money. The banks can then loan this money to people who then deposit the money into other banks who loan those deposits to other people and so on. This is how the fractional reserve process expands the money supply. This is why I did not include a chart of the money supply since that is counting the same money multiple times. If I deposited 100 newly minted coins into a bank and that bank proceeded to loan out 80 of my coins where 80 are deposited into another bank who then proceeds to loan out 60 of the coins, and so on....the production of coins only changed by the initial 100 that I minted - not by the fractional reserve multiple. There are historical examples of inflation with gold and silver as duff has pointed out. None of them come close in magnitude to the inflation experienced with government fiat money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3441d94495464df9250686f3ee189cf", "text": "As one can see here, the world population is growing. Assuming worldwide demand for gold is a function of population, the question you have to ask is whether gold mining outpaces population growth. Just eyeballing it, I'd say they're about even although annual production is far noisier. Keep in mind that gold extraction is not an easy process though. At the end of the day, gold is only worth what you can trade it for, just like any other store of value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "861a9d04974ce6c228e125c840a8f454", "text": "Mining/discovery of gold can be inflationary -- the Spanish looting of Central America for a few hundred years or the gold rush in the 19th century US are examples of that phenomenon. The difference between printing currency and mining is that you have to ability to print money on demand, while mining is limited to whatever is available to extract at a given time. The rising price of gold may be contributing to increased production, as low-grade ore that wasn't economically viable to work with in the 1980's are now affordable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9a36dad5328565bc5ddca2e2b3bcdb6", "text": "\"The relative value of Gold (or any other commodity) as measured against any given currency (such as the USD), is not a constant function either. If you have inflationary pressure, the \"\"value\"\" of an ounce of gold (or barrel of oil, etc) may \"\"double\"\", but it's really because the underlying comparator has lost \"\"half\"\" its value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc21709e61f35e1dabf585879d691d0b", "text": "Contrary to Muro's answer which strangely shows a graph of the Fed's balance sheet and not the money supply, the supply of US dollars has never doubled in a few days. This graph from Wikipedia shows M2, which is the wider measure of money supply, to have doubled over approximately 10 years, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg The answer to whether gold has a higher chance of experiencing big devaluation has to do with forces outside anyone's control, if a big new mine of gold is discovered that could affect prices, but also if the economy turns around it could lead investors to pull out of gold and back into the stock markets. The USD, on the other hand, is under control of the policy makers at the Fed who have a dual mandate to keep inflation and unemployment low. The Fed seems to have gotten better over the last 30 years at controlling inflation and the dollar has not experienced big inflation since the 70s. Inflation, as measured by Core CPI, has been maintained at less than 4% for the last 20 years and is currently coming off record low levels below 1%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ecf92a1eef74b790a80f226f77a7c9c", "text": "The previous answers have raised very good points, but I believe one facet of this has been neglected. While it's true that the total accessible supply of gold keeps growing(although rather slowly as was mentioned earlier) the fact remains that gold, like oil, is a non-renewable natural resource. So, at some point, we are going to run out of gold to mine. Due to this fact, I believe gold will always be highly valued. Of course it can certainly always fluctuate in value. In fact, I expect in the reasonably near future to see a decline in the price of gold due to investors selling it en masse to re-enter the stock market when the economy has recovered more substantially.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc37e16996cab5779c8b46ce87dd4202", "text": "Does gold's value decrease over time due to the fact that it is being continuously mined? Remember that demand increases and decreases - we've had seven years or so of strong demand increase and the corresponding price increase suggests there is a lack of gold coming into the market rather than too much. Also, bear in mind that mining the stuff on any scale is hazardous and requires massive investment in infrastructure and time. Large mines frequently take seven to ten years to come on-stream - hardly an elastic enterprise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "206aa24b94ac02bb8cfe0c5fb19932a3", "text": "There is another aspect too for the high prices of GOLD. After the current economical crisis people are no more investing in property and a big chunk of investment has been diverted to GOLD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06d32a236f38332d9935e7c8dbab66f6", "text": "\"Like anything else, the price/value of gold is driven by supply and demand. Mining adds about 2% a year to the supply. Then the question is, will the demand in a given year rise by more or less than 2%. ON AVERAGE, the answer is \"\"more.\"\" That may not be true in any given year, and was untrue for whole DECADES of the 1980s and 1990s, when the price of gold fell steadily. On the other hand, demand for gold has risen MUCH more than 2% a year in the 2000s, for reasons discussed by others. That is seen in the six-fold rise in price, from about $300 an ounce to $1800 an ounce over the past ten years.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "5f86975dd87e90730ed4af18e94a1174", "text": "I think part of the confusion is due to the age of the term and how money has changed over time relative to being backed by precious metals vs using central banks etc. Historically: Because historically the coin itself was precious metal, if a change occurred between the 'face value' of the coin and value of the precious metal itself, the holder of the coin was less affected since they have the precious metal already in hand. They could always trade it based on the metal value instead of the face value. OTOH if you buy a note worth an the current price of ounce of gold, and the price of gold goes up, and then the holder wants to redeem the note, they end up with less than an ounce of gold. In the more modern age The main concern is the cost to borrow funds to put money into circulation, or the gain when it goes out of circulation. The big difference between the two is that bills tend stay in circulation until they wear out, have to be bought back and replaced. Coins on the other hand last longer, but have a tendency to drop out of circulation due to collectors (especially with 'collectible series' coins that the mint seems to love to issue lately). This means that bills issued tend to stay in circulation, while only a percentage of coins stays in circulation. So the net effect on the money supply is different for the two, and since modern 'seigniorage' is all about the cost to put money in circulation, it is different in the case of coins where some percentage will not remain circulating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f416e822c8eb187414af66b992c6054d", "text": "No, it doesn't matter how powerful the machines are that do the mining. The system balances it out (increases the difficulty) so that one block is mined every 10 minutes, regardless of whether there's 500 miners in the world or 50 million, it will always be around 10 minutes (sometimes 9 and sometimes 11 though). And one block used to be 50BTC, but every 4 years this halves and so in 100 years the supply increase will be almost 0, miners will still get the transaction fees though. This means bitcoin is limited to a supply of less than 21 million. Which creates the scarcity. There's possibly a problem though. Quantum computing might not increase the supply but it could potentially decrypt the encryption, but if that happens the whole internet and digital world will be in trouble and not just bitcoin.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9178447e3c6b7a4528522f3c1acb7cdc", "text": "If that fraction is really small, then the amount of gold can be thought of as relatively constant. That fraction is very small. After all, people have been mining gold for thousands of years. So the cumulative results of gold mining have been building up the supply for quite some time. Meanwhile, owners of gold rarely destroy it. A little bit of gold is used in some industries as a consumable. This limited consumption of gold offsets some of the production that comes from mining. But truthfully this effect is minuscule. For the most part people either hoard it like its made of gold, or sell it (after all it is worth its weight in gold). If you're interested Wikipedia lists a few more factors that affect gold prices. (If you're not interested Wikipedia lists them anyway.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78a404e558f1ea88df99f08429f60464", "text": "It’s an investment and a currency which is also based no less than the value it takes to mine... so yeah you’re right if people who are involved in bitcoin decide it’s not worth the time to have a currency it will become worth less than it take to mine.. but it’s worth 102b do I don’t think it’s gonna happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3c3f7d8b8ea34d9e2946cdc47094ef5", "text": "What you are seeing is the effects of inflation. As money becomes less valuable it takes more of it to buy physical things, be they commodities, shares in a company's stock, and peoples time (salaries). Just about the only thing that doesn't track inflation to some degree is cash itself or money in an account since that is itself what is being devalued. So the point of all this is, buying anything (a house, gold, stocks) that doesn't depreciate (a car) is something of a hedge against inflation. However, don't be tricked (as many are) into thinking that house just made you a tidy sum just because it went up in value so much over x years. Remember 1) All the other houses and things you'd spend the money on are a lot more expensive now too; and 2) You put a lot more money into a house than the mortgage payment (taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.) I'm with the others though. Don't get caught up in the gold bubble. Doing so now is just speculation and has a lot of risk associated with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6522950c19c9bdd002c6744ecb57c923", "text": "Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value. The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a05e4b7eb3186e433bee9ebc1234649c", "text": "There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Gold has value because it is rare and has a market. If any of those things decline, the value plunges. The question of whether gold is overvalued or not is complicated and depends on a lot of factors. The key question in my mind is: Is gold more valuable in terms of US dollars because it is becoming more valuable, or because the value of US dollars, the prevailing medium of exchange, is declining?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b1252f5c85ef9772c14c3b3d5c5aa05", "text": "Not at the current price. Take a look at historical charts going back five years. When the meltdown occurred in 2008, gold price took a big dip due to deleveraging, etc. I would expect the same to happen again with the current crisis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "831c8f232d1346bee6ed25d4c736aa80", "text": "It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7eb02878e2ec6b0098d0bd28a1bb5d6", "text": "Gold is not really an investment at all, because it doesn't generate an income. It's only worth money because people think it's worth money (it has some industrial uses, but most gold is used as a store of value and not for industrial purposes), not because of its income stream.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4f88ffe15068a7dd8535b515b44ec41", "text": "I own a gold mine and my cost of producing an ounce of gold is $600. Less than that, I lose money, anything over is profit. Today, at $1500, I sell futures to match my production for the next 2 years. I'm happy to lock in the profit. If gold goes to $3000, well, too bad, but if it drops to $500, I can still sell it for the $1500 as I mine it. I suppose I could also close out the contracts at a profit and still shut the mines down, but the point is illustrated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88c1bea5105717ac6d901d758a6518b0", "text": "Cute, but 100 years of market history will show you the fundamentals have persisted for a reason. Every industry in history has tried to pull this “but this is different” thing off (oil, gold, semiconductors) and they have ALL been brought to reality in time. There is no reason to think today is any different. There will be recessions again, there will be market crashes again, either tomorrow or 5 years from now. It always levels out.", "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": "a7590aea80f2cd8829cf78274c86e97e", "text": "In general you will take home more in the US than in Canada. There are so many variables that is is impossible to provide a comprehensive answer that will cover all bases: so here are a few hand-waving statements. Two example calculator web sites for Canada and the US (chosen somewhat at random through Google, show that making $50,000 of either currency for the upcoming tax year in Canada you would expect to pay about $9,100 and for the US $5,900. Missing there are the state taxes, however, which also vary wildly. The deductions, adjustment and credits in both countries can really add up, so if you have specific questions, you should consult a tax specialist. Similarly, both countries provide various tax sheltered investment structures that change the game somewhat over the long term.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
bfce9319f50c36bb954fc53c4ccfd126
What argument(s) support the claim that long-term housing prices trend upward?
[ { "docid": "d292dce30c34660d5c840e8ce5922971", "text": "Several people have mentioned the obvious: inflation. But let's assume we are talking about real (inflation adjusted) prices. One argument is that populations keep rising while the land does not change. So the price of homes in desirable places gets pushed up and people move to second-best locations, pushing those prices up, etc. Similar Malthusian argument holds for raw materials (steel, granite, fine wood, etc.). Another argument is that the economy has a long-term upward trajectory (that's the assumption). So each generation, as a whole, has more disposable real income than the previous. As disposable income increases, people tend to put more and more money into their homes, pushing prices up. True for all goods, of course, but it may be more true for real estate than for other types of goods.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6e5ae4073483fc8fe8353bc8a8c31ad", "text": "The Shiller data is inflation adjusted. In effect, a flat line means that long term, housing rises with inflation, no more no less. There's no argument, just the underlying data to support his charts. This, among them. As much as I respect Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller, his approach and analysis of the boom ignored interest rates. Say we look at a $50K earning couple. This is just below median income. At 9%, they qualify to borrow $145K. As rates fell to 4%, they qualify for $244K. Same fixed 30 term. Ignoring all other factors, the swing in rates will generate an oscillation around the long term trend. And my own data crunching suggests the equilibrium median home price will tend toward the price supported by the median income. A similar, but not identical question - Why can't house prices be out of tune with salaries? In response to Chan-Ho's comment - I'd imagine Shiller understood the interest impact. To clarify, the chart, as presented, ignores it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5eb94df80246aae2b4d230cca77cd1f7", "text": "It is supported by inflation and historical values. if you look at real estate as well as the stock market they have consistently increased over a long period of history even with short term drops. It is also based on inflation and the fact that the price of land and building material has increased over time.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "799a9ee5e202bf0686256b32b8c4a361", "text": "\"As Michael McGowan says, just because gold has gone up lots recently does not mean it will continue to go up by the same amount. This plot: shows that if your father had bought $20,000 in gold 30 years ago, then 10 years ago he would have slightly less than $20,000 to show for it. Compare that with the bubble in real estate in the US: Update: I was curious about JoeTaxpayer's question: how do US house prices track against US taxpayer's ability to borrow? To try to answer this, I used the house price data from here, the 30 year fixed mortgages here and the US salary information from here. To calculate the \"\"ability to borrow\"\" I took the US hourly salary information, multiplied by 2000/12 to get a monthly salary. I (completely arbitrarily) assumed that 25 per cent of the monthly salary would be used on mortgage payments. I then used Excel's \"\"PV\"\" (Present Value) function to calculate the present value of the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The resulting graph is below. The correlation coefficient between the two plots is 0.93. There are so many caveats on what I've done in ~15 minutes, I don't want to list them... but it certainly \"\"gives one furiously to think\"\" !! Update 2: OK, so even just salary information correlates very well with the house price increases. And looking at the differences, we can see that perhaps there was a spike or bubble in house prices over and above what might be expected from salary-only or ability-to-borrow.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8071a6472c0484cb470020ad36178cfc", "text": "All else constant, yes. It's one more reason rates aren't being raised quickly. The housing market is very delicate. Before the crash, a lot of homes in my area were 25% cheaper than after the rates dropped to historic lows. My area wasn't heavily affected by the recession, but homeowners still greatly benefitted from the increase in housing values which led to a lot more investment, though the houses aren't actually worth anything more. To raise rates dramatically now would be to trap a lot of homebuyers in homes that aren't worth what they owe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a0cb5254e027e8494ff716f719942a4", "text": "In general, prices are inversely proportional to rates; however, accurate interest rate prediction would make one worthy of managing a large credit derivative hedge fund. This is not to say that interest rates cannot go up in Canada since the world is currently undergoing a resource bust, and the United States has begun exporting more oil, even trying to recently open the market to Europe, both of which Canada is relatively dependent upon. Also, to say that Canada currently has the most overpriced real estate is an oversight to say the least considering China currently has entire cities that are empty because prices are too high. A ten to twenty percent drop in real estate prices would probably be a full blown financial crisis, and since mortgage rates are currently around 2.5%, a one to two hundred basis point rise could mean a nearly 50% decrease in real estate prices if interest payments are held constant. Canada would either have to start growing its economy at a much higher rate to encourage the central bank to raise rates to such a height, or oil would have to completely collapse suddenly to cause a speculatively possible collapse of CAD to encourage the same. The easiest relationship to manipulate between prices and rates is the perpetuity: where p is the price, i is the interest payment, and r is the interest rate. In this case, an increase of r from 2.5% to 4.5% would cause a 44.5% decrease in p if i is held constant. However, typical Canadian mortgages seem to mature in ten years at a fixed rate, so i cannot be held constant, and the relationship between r and p is less strong at earlier maturities, thus the most likely way for prices to collapse is for a financial collapse as described above.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbbf2a6b23742336462b8913f03a364a", "text": "\"Your argument is biased vastly in favor of the banks: Doesn't the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by yourself that Fannie and Freddie were at the root of the problem? Why does your explanation also leave out predatory lending? Or that during 2006, 22% of homes purchased (1.65 million units) were for investment purposes, with an additional 14% (1.07 million units) purchased as vacation homes. During 2005, these figures were 28% and 12%, respectively. In other words, a record level of nearly 40% of homes purchased were not intended as primary residences. Or that housing prices nearly doubled between 2000 and 2006, a vastly different trend from the historical appreciation at roughly the rate of inflation. Or that the proportion of subprime ARM loans made to people with credit scores high enough to qualify for conventional mortgages with better terms increased from 41% in 2000 to 61% by 2006. From wikipedia: So why did lending standards decline? In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a \"\"Giant Pool of Money\"\" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with financial innovation such as the mortgage-backed security (MBS) and collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4d01c772c24800876671b6bce4ed6e4", "text": "When over the long term housing costs in a area rise faster than wages rise, the demographic of who lives in the area changes. The size and income parameters change. A region that was full of young singles is now populated with couples with adult children, that means that the businesses and amenities have to change. At a national level it isn't sustainable unless other items change. The portion of monthly income that can be safely allocated to housing would have to change. One adjustment could be the the lengthening of home loan periods, thus dropping the monthly payment. This has been seen with car loans, over the last few decades the length of loans has increased. In interesting related event could be the change in deduction of mortgage interest and property tax. If this was to change abruptly, there could be an abrupt change the estimated value of housing, because the calculus of affordability would change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a21425786f2006a557cb879fecabb09b", "text": "\"Meh, not really. While there was some idea that housing prices would continue to rise forever, the packaging of bad loans has nothing to do with optimism, that's outright fraud. If you really want to stretch the definition, you might be able to say they had a fantasy that they weren't going to get caught because...well they hadn't for nearly two decades. Honestly though, just google \"\"fraud housing market\"\" or \"\"mortgage banks\"\" and you'll find more than enough direct proof of fraud and deception.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5b8ace549a8b68a2fde3f9fff3db873", "text": "Haven't they been predicting this since 2012? The luxury housing market keeps going up due to huge demand, influx of $ from the economic and stock market boom, and technological epicenters of innovation such as the Bay Area. Not a bubble", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f5fbb6159cba2de341347f02494910e", "text": "I don't buy it. The evidence offered seems weak. Stocks are pretty high, but debt in the US has decreased according to the Federal Reserve statistics concerning debt. It's true there is a little inflation in prices because of low interest rates, but as the Fed starts raising rates, there will be a correction. Not a recession.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49992736fd22c5c34efdd7992ee2229c", "text": "The logic is that the value of America could be determined by adding up the assets of all Americans. If houses are more expensive then America is richer (we own a large number of more expensive houses), even though no additional real assets have been created (as if more houses were built).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "316aaea6c0c834ddb9550880f0674583", "text": "In any case, for sure, the wages went up... a lot... and most likely wage increases are most of the 30% increase in costs. As for consumers paying more, maybe they will get better quality, maybe they will be able to afford it now with extra income and maybe they will not raise the prices as they already have huge margins, people have choices and the real estate prices is only based on relative price of neighboring houses, used or new.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0789f2f54cd1d242c521474bc9a7efa3", "text": "The history of the last 100 years has demonstrated that inflation need not be a straight-line advance in price across the board. New technology has delivered productivity gains which have in many cases compensated for inflation. Keep in mind that price changes may be inflationary, but may not attributable to inflation. For example, the massive swing upward in gasoline prices had more to do with the market, specifically Chinese demand for gas than inflation. But increased fuel costs trickle into the prices of other commodities that we need to buy as well!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9673cb5d7b07b8fa7af7568ef4082cda", "text": "I mentioned in other posts that it's not unreasonable that prices might rise slightly. Demand would go up and some labor costs would as well. To your point, I can say that prices would not go up 1:1, that's an absurd hypothesis that doesn't stand up to even a sniff test.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d5aab7d69f4d7dcc600f2e8dffe876e", "text": "\"House prices do not go up. Land prices in countries with growing economies tend to go up. The price of the house on the land generally depreciates as it wears out. Houses require money; they are called money pits for a reason. You have to replace HVAC periodically, roofs, repairs, rot, foundation problems, leaks, electrical repair; and all of that just reduces the rate at which the house (not the land) loses value. To maintain value (of the house proper), you need to regularly rebuild parts of the house. People expect different things in Kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms, doors, bedrooms today than they do in the past, and wear on flooring and fixtures accumulate over time. The price of land and is going to be highly determined by the current interest rates. Interest rates are currently near zero; if they go up by even a few percent, we can expect land prices to stop growing and start shrinking, even if the economy continues to grow. So the assumption that land+house prices go up is predicated on the last 35 years of constant rigorous economic growth mixed with interest rate decreases. This is a common illusion, that people assume the recent economic past is somehow the way things are \"\"naturally\"\". But we cannot decrease interest rates further, and rigorous economic growth is far from guaranteed. This is because people price land based on their carrying cost; the cost you have to spend out of your income to have ownership of it. And that is a function of interest rates. Throw in no longer expecting land values to constantly grow and second-order effects that boost land value also go away. Depending on the juristiction, a mortgage is a hugely leveraged investment. It is akin to taking 10,000$, borrowing 40,000$ and buying stock. If the stock goes up, you make almost 5x as much money; if it goes down, you lose 5x as much. And you owe a constant stream of money to service the debt on top of that. If you want to be risk free, work out how you'd deal with the value of your house dropping by 50% together with losing your job, getting a job paying half as much after a period of 6 months unemployment. The new job requires a 1.5 hour commute from your house. Interest rates going up to 12% and your mortgage is up for renewal (in 15 years - they climbed gradually over the time, say), optionally. That is a medium-bad situation (not a great depression scale problem), but is a realistic \"\"bad luck\"\" event that could happen to you. Not likely, but possible. Can you weather it? If so, the risk is within your bounds. Note that going bankrupt may be a reasonable plan to such a bit of bad luck. However, note that had you not purchased the house, you wouldn't be bankrupt in that situation. It is reasonably likely that house prices will, after you spend ~3% of the construction cost of the house per year, pay the mortgage on the land+house, grow at a rate sufficient to offset the cost of renting and generate an economically reasonable level of profit. It is not a risk-free investment. If someone tries to sell you a risk-free investment, they are almost certainly wrong.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5899a75c9942cfffea9c6cdb3cbf77ab", "text": "The big problem with your argument is the 10% per year figure, because in the long term (especially if adjusted for inflation) the prices have not been going up nearly that fast. Here is a site with some nice graphs for prices over the last 40 years, and it's pretty clear to see that pretty much just what you were talking about happened, prices outpaced the ability of people to pay, which progressively locked out more and more first time buyers, and eventually that breaks the cycle, pops the bubble, and the prices adjust. There is always of course the choice to NOT buy a house, and just rent, or if you had the feeling that you are near the top of a bubble, SELL and go back to renting. It's interesting to note that in general, rental rates did not increase at nearly the same pace as the prices in the recent bubble. (which of course made it harder for anyone who bought 'investment' properties in the recent 8 years or so to cover their payments via rental revenue.)", "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": "" } ]
fiqa
81a2caffbc15778032f5da61c6a70ec6
Why does gold have value?
[ { "docid": "029604fb1bc4681115e58f3ce904a708", "text": "Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02de874aa4484ea8fc2860b128165f7c", "text": "\"Because people are willing to trade for it. People are willing to trade for Gold because: The value of gold goes up because the demand for it goes up, while the supply has been basically static (or growing at a low static rate) for a long time. The demand is going up because people see it as a safe place to put their money. Another reason Gold's value in dollars goes up, is because the value of the item it's traded against (dollars, euros, yen, etc) goes down, while its own value stays roughly the same. You point out Gold is not as liquid as cash, but gold (both traded on an exchange, and held physically) is easily sold. There is always someone willing to trade you cash for gold. Compare this to some of the bank stocks during the first part of our current recession. People were not willing to give much of anything for your shares. As the (annoying, misleading) advertisements say, \"\"Gold has never been worth zero\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f8d919b698a86fb35522e60db89d06c", "text": "A lot of people probably don't agree with him, but Warren Buffett has some great quotes on why he doesn't invest in gold: I will say this about gold. If you took all the gold in the world, it would roughly make a cube 67 feet on a side…Now for that same cube of gold, it would be worth at today’s market prices about $7 trillion dollars – that’s probably about a third of the value of all the stocks in the United States…For $7 trillion dollars…you could have all the farmland in the United States, you could have about seven Exxon Mobils, and you could have a trillion dollars of walking-around money…And if you offered me the choice of looking at some 67 foot cube of gold and looking at it all day, and you know me touching it and fondling it occasionally…Call me crazy, but I’ll take the farmland and the Exxon Mobils. And his classic quote: [Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3530792df52e52d0bf8c62ff035e4fc3", "text": "I think the primary reason it is so pricey now is that it is an inflation hedge, and considering how shaky the economies and out of control the spending is in many countries right now, people are running to it as a safe harbor. The increased demand raises the price as it does with any asset. This brings us to the titular question. Why does gold have value? The same reason anything has value. There is someone out there who wants it enough to trade something else of value to get it. It is in the news so much because it is so high right now, which unfortunately is going to cause a lot of people to foolishly invest in it at likely the worst possible time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0e4bd48a4341838e9c01b29e8b6da44", "text": "\"Gold has value because for the most of the history of mankind's use of money, Gold and Silver have repeatedly been chosen by free markets as the best form of money. Gold is durable, portable, homogeneous, fungible, divisible, rare, and recognizable. Until 1971, most of the world's currencies were backed by Gold. In 1971, the US government defaulted on its obligation to redeem US Dollars (by which most other currencies were backed) in Gold, as agreed to by the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944. We didn't choose to go off the Gold Standard, we had no choice - Foreign Central Banks were demanding redeption in Gold, and the US didn't have enough - we inflated too much. I think that the current swell of interest in Gold is due to the recent massive increase in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, plus the fast growing National debt, plus a looming Social Security / Medicare crisis. People are looking for protection of their savings, and they wish to \"\"opt-out\"\" of the government bail-outs, government deficits, government run health-care, and government money printing. They are looking for a currency that doesn't have a counter-party. \"\"Gold is money and nothing else\"\" - JP Morgan \"\"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.\"\" - Alan Greenspan\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e5271f8049ed19205130dbe8eff245b", "text": "\"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. --Publilius Syrus. Gold has value because people want to buy it. Electronics manufacturers like the fact that it's conductive. Jewellers like that its shiny. Glenn Beck likes that he's selling it and his audience will buy it. Proponents of gold claim that it has \"\"real\"\" value, as opposed to fiat currency (which has no commodity backing). Opponents of gold claim that all wealth is illusory, and that gold has no more inherent value than the paper we use now. I'm inclined to agree with the latter (money is only money because we agree that it is, and the underlying material is meaningless), however the issue is hotly debated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20d35dcd991462583b6f350778cbfaf", "text": "To start with gold has value because it is scarce, durable, attractive and can be made into jewellery. But that does not explain its current value. In the current economic climate, it is difficult for many investors to get a positive return on conventional investments such as equities or bonds. I theorise that, in such conditions, investors decide to park their money in gold simply because there are few other good options. This in itself drives the price of gold up, making it a better investment and causing a speculative boom. As you will see here, here, and here the gold price is negatively correlated with stock market indices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ded3a7c1b081bb1aedfe9475c327af3", "text": "I use to play marbles at school. Marbles were like gold the more you had the richer you were. They were a scarce commodity only a few in circulation. Once I secured a wealth of marbles I realized they were of little real value. They were only of illusory value. As long as we all were deceived into believe they had value they I was rich. Sure marble could be used to make marble floors ;) they were lovely to look at, and every one wanted them. Then one day, I discovered the emperor had no clothes. Wow, the day that everyone sees the true value of gold, what a stock market crash that will be. I tried to avoid gold as much as possible, but this is hard to do in todays stock market. My solace is that we will all be in the same golden (Titanic) boat, only I hope to limit my exposure as much as possible. Anyone want a gold watch for a slice of bread?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0709d8ba0e52a674eebf56cf4fc4cb0c", "text": "\"It has semantic value (because we culturally believe gold is valuable). There is a very important point here. Gold and many other coin metals. This \"\"semantic value\"\" is enshrined in law through the special tax status of coin metals. You can buy a kilo of gold and not pay sales tax. You can't buy a kilo of iron or tin and do the same. This is the important part because investors shouldn't care about semantics. I read that the taxable status varies by state or nation, so you need to be very careful. It's possible to evade taxes without realizing it. It also doesn't necessarily exempt you from the form of gold. An ingot should be tax exempt. A collector's coin may or may not be, depending on your local laws and the difference between the value of the weight of the gold, and the value of the form of the coin.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8adfda019d784320770ca81ca7ff918d", "text": "\"Why does the value of gold go up when gold itself doesn't produce anything? Why do people invest in gold? Your perception, that the value of gold goes up in the long run, is based on the price of gold measured in your favorite paper currency, for example the US Dollar. An increasing price of gold means that in the visible gold market, market participants are willing to exchange more paper currency units for the same amount of gold. There are many possible reasons for this: While HFT became extremely important for the short term price movements, I will continue with long term effects, excluding HFT. So when - as a simple thought experiment - the amount of available paper currency units (US $ or whatever) doubles, and the amount of goods and services in an economy stay the same, you can expect that the price of everything in this economy will double, including gold. You might perceive that the value of gold doubled. It did not. It stayed the same. The number of printed dollars doubled. The value of gold is still the same, its price doubled. Does the amount of paper currency units grow over time? Yes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/ In this answer my term \"\"paper currency units\"\" includes dollars that exist only as digits in bank accounts and \"\"printing currency\"\" includes creating those digits in bank accounts out of thin air. So the first answer: gold holds its value while the value of paper currency units shrinks over time. So gold enables you to pass wealth to the next generation (while hiding it from your government). That gold does not produce anything is not entirely true. For those of us mortals who have only a few ounces, it is true. But those who have tons can lease it out and earn interest. (in practice it is leased out multiple times, so multiple that gain. You might call this fraud, and rightfully so. But we are talking about tons of gold. Nobody who controls tons of physical gold goes to jail yet). Let's talk about Fear. You see, the perceived value of gold increases as more paper currency is printed. And markets price in expected future developments. So the value of gold rises, if a sufficient number of wealthy people fear the the government(s) will print too much paper currency. Second Answer: So the price of gold not only reflects the amount of paper currency, it is also a measurement of distrust in government(s). Now you might say something is wrong with my argument. The chart mentioned above shows that we have now (mid 2015) 5 times as much printed currency units than we had 2008. So the price of gold should be 5 times as high as 2008, assuming the amount of distrust in governments stayed the same. There must be more effects (or I might be completely wrong. You decide). But here is one more effect: As the price of gold is a measurement of distrust in governments (and especially the US government since the US Dollar is perceived as the reserve currency), the US government and associated organizations are extremely interested in low gold prices to prove trust. So people familiar with the topic believe that the price of gold (and silver) is massively manipulated to the downside using high frequency trading and shorts in the futures markets by US government and wall street banks to disprove distrust. And wall street banks gain huge amounts of paper currency units by manipulating the price, mostly to the downside. Others say that countries like china and russia are also interested in low gold prices because they want to buy as much physical gold as possible. Knowing of the value that is not reflected by the price at the moment. Is there one more source of distrust in governments? Yes. Since 1971, all paper currencies are debt. They receive their value by the trust that those with debt are willing and able to pay back their debt. If this trust is lost, the downward manipulation (if you think that such a thing exists) of the gold and silver prices in the futures markets might fail some day. If this is the case (some say when this is the case). you might see movements in gold and silver prices that bring them back to equilibrium with the amount of printed paper currencies. In times of the roman empire you got a good toga and a pair of handmade shoes for an ounce of gold. In our days, you get a nice suite and a good pair of shoes for an ounce of gold. In the mean time, the value of each paper currency in the history of each country went to zero and the US $ lost 98% of its initial value. As long as there is not enough distrust, more paper currency is made in equity markets and bond markets on average. (Be aware that you earn that currency only after you were able to sell at this price, not while you hold it) Gerd\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb068a39368323846339508ad7548568", "text": "\"Most of the answers here reflect a misunderstanding of what gold actually is from a financial perspective. I'll answer your question by asking two questions, and I do challenge you to stop and think about what we mean when we say \"\"cash\"\" or \"\"unit of exchange\"\" because without understanding those, you will completely miss this answer. In 1971, the DXY was 110. For people who don't know, the DXY is the US Dollar Index - it weighs the strength of the US Dollar relative to other currencies. Hey look, it's a pretty graph of the DXY's history. In 1971, gold was $35 an ounce. The DXY is 97 today. Gold is $1170 an ounce today. Now the questions: If shares of Company A in 1971 were $10 a share, but now are $100 a share and some of this is because the company has grown, but some of it is because of inflation and the DXY losing value, what would the value of the company be if it was held in grams of gold and not dollars? Benjamin Graham, who influenced Warren Buffett, is a \"\"supposed\"\" critic of gold, yet what percent of his life were we not on a gold standard? In his day, the dollar was backed by gold - why would you buy gold if every dollar represented gold. Finally, consider how many US Dollars exist, and how few metric tonnes of gold exist (165,000). Even Paul Volcker admitted that a new gold standard would be impossible because the value of gold, if we did it today, would put gold in the $5000-$10000 range - which is absurd: To get on a gold standard technically now, an old fashioned gold standard, and you had to replace all the dollars out there in foreign hands with gold, God the price, you buy gold, because the price of gold would have to be enormous. So, you're all left hoping the Federal Reserve figures how to get us all out of this mess without causing trouble, otherwise, let me just kindly say, you WILL realize the value of gold then. As the old saying goes, \"\"A fool and his money are soon parted.\"\" I could be wrong, but I'd say that those who've been buying gold since 1971 for their \"\"cash holdings\"\" (not index funds) aren't the suckers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94f18051e3c46aff0d139f67e81dc269", "text": "\"Gold has very useful physical properties for some engineering applications. Even tiny amounts of gold can substantially improve products, so it can be worthwhile to pay high prices per ounce for gold. For example: Gold can be \"\"beaten\"\" or electroplated to produce very thin shiny coatings. Entire roofs (of famous buildings) have been covered with \"\"gold leaf\"\", at a cost that was small compared to the supporting structure. A very thin layer of electroplated gold provides better protection against corrosion than a much thicker layer of electroplated nickel. Even if gold costs thousands of times more per ounce than nickel, it is cheaper to use gold as an anti-corrosion layer than nickel (for use in military-grade naval electronics). A thin layer of electroplated gold greatly increases the electrical current-carrying capacity of a thin copper wire.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60abc7a7295934ebd9bde221cdeb023d", "text": "\"Gold can be thought of to have value in one of two ways; (1) as a means and (2) as an end. Means takes the shape of currency. In this form, we value gold in the same way we value the dollar, it allows us to purchase things we want. As a medium of exchange, gold has no definitive value and is only assigned one during the process of an exchange. For example, I would be valuing one ingot of gold to be worth a dog if I traded a dog for one ingot of gold. The value of gold in this sense is subjective as each person decides for themselves what gold is worth during the transaction. Gold as an end is valued for its own sake. A good example of this is a jeweler who purchases gold directly because of the intrinsic property(s) gold possesses. This is closer to the \"\"true value\"\" of gold than using it as a means, but virtually no one in our society views gold in this manor because virtually no one can use gold in this manor. \"\"You know what I could use right now, a block of gold.\"\" - said no one ever. But even if you are one of the select few who value gold for its own sake, this is usually done because gold provides a function. For example, if people no longer want to ware jewelry, then a jeweler will likely have to find a new line of work where he would likely no longer view gold as valuable as an ends. To sum up, gold has a perceived value for most people and an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" to a select few (for the time being).\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "98d2744aa08398bbbfb3bacfd6f5d240", "text": "Of course. But then, paper also has utility. So do seashells and pinecones. There is no obvious reason why, even in a perfect world, we would go looking for a malleable, highly-conductive, corrosion-resistant metal as something to peg the value of our banknotes to. The argument in favor of a gold standard is not whether gold is intrinsically more valuable than paper or seal skins or anything else, it's that gold is fairly inelastic in terms of supply, so it limits the ability of central bankers to mess up the value of the currency through interventionist funny business. If you picked up a rock and started going around telling people that we should use it as money because it's highly malleable and conductive and can be used in computer parts, they would look at you like you're a crazy person. That's not why gold is/was/should be a currency. Gold was indisputably the perfect currency for thousands of years, because it was easy to identify, easy to handle, hard to falsify, and rare. Those were important characteristics when strangers had to carry physical money to different places without any ATMs, credit-cards, or paypal accounts. They are somewhat less critical today, but still... The one characteristic that might *still* argue in favor of a gold standard is rarity: Since the amount of gold in the world is somewhat fixed, forcing the currency supply to be restricted to the gold supply semi-prevents governments and central bankers from getting into too much mischief (or at least, that's the theory). I will leave it to others to argue over whether a return to the gold standard would be a good idea, but the argument has nothing to with the intrinsic utility of gold. I'm sure we can all agree that gold is a fine metal with many good qualities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f5008996d6dec474559349bc2d2a081", "text": "I would imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the benefits of gold was it was very easy to detect counterfeiting. It had a known weight, easily identified color, and there were many easily accessible ways to verify that it was, in fact, gold. Paper money has been a relatively recent development, monetarily, and it seems like it has matured as methods of preventing false currency have likewise matured. EDIT: Ah, and there it is, in one of your comments further down. Cool.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb407f054ab03cb8a94931ab2f94b3b9", "text": "Yes and i told you that bitcoin could also be perceived as valuable too, like seashells did in the past. Personally, i think bitcoin has value because it is a giant money laundering scheme. All the big players are investing into it because they need to funnel their drug money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d72158325951e5027d5bfbeec4c607cc", "text": "\"Currencies such as the dollar, the Euro, and most others are no longer tied to gold in any way. They are just paper that is worth what it's worth because everyone agrees to accept it. Previously, currencies used to be commonly tied to gold reserves, and could theoretically be \"\"cashed in\"\" for gold, although not usually as much as the currency denomination (i.e., gold on the open market tended to sell for higher prices than what the government would give you for it).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "476b54200809b4ea0520e9c0a3405378", "text": "Mainly because I have it and you don't, I can make you do stuff for it because more of us perceive its value than bother about the paper you are holding. Picture if you will a moment in time, when the paper you are holding, represented the amount of gold you had at home, as time went by you spent all your gold and the amount the paper represented, became less and less and the amount of lunch you could buy with it became less and less. Today the day has arrived, that you have no gold left and what your paper represents is an empty coffer . . Move along . .people who can pay for their lunch are waiting and look, the paper they hold represents gold they have.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c578c93da22d50ffcb71f8e3c5627bdc", "text": "\"&gt; Value is entirely subjective to individuals. Nothing has \"\"intrinsic value\"\". Question: *Water, oxygen -- caveats to intrinsic value because they are that which is consumed by virtue of one's being alive and staying alive and are of limited supply?* Can we expand on \"\"value\"\" and how it operates on the barest of essentials to sustain life. To rephrase: [1] That the tripartite nature of the system of money--token (countable), vehicle (exchangeable), and repository (valuable)--depends on life existing ergo exist as conditions necessary for the creation of an economy but yet will be necessarily valued by the economy because of the projected increases in population, that is, future demand rising as function of the earthly supply means that the value of these goods can or cannot be projected and, more broadly, [2] how do economists evaluate the role of money in relation to timing, especially when it pertains to these unproduced or \"\"given\"\" yet essential goods and especially coupled with the knowledge that the population will continue to proliferate? Really, I'm not trying to undermine or debunk or be plain ridiculous; I'm curious as to how economic theory will (or has begun to) try to solve a \"\"singularity\"\" (threshold) problem that has yet to occur but no doubt will? Maybe it's an unfair question but even so, I'm sure someone on this thread might steer us towards a starting point. And I only ask because the economic breakdown by otherwiseyep and the discussion in the thread herein are, say, quite as substantial as they are clear.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de76dd8be879644dd6aff119fe53a486", "text": "Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edf4fba292caeb83937280fef7ca1934", "text": "\"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\"\"In 2010 GBP\"\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af6fc06890c6a15e9c4c5206ac646982", "text": "Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the gold price (Source). 3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of reasons: 4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices. One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold, possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15% of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source) (Source of above graphs)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a05e4b7eb3186e433bee9ebc1234649c", "text": "There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Gold has value because it is rare and has a market. If any of those things decline, the value plunges. The question of whether gold is overvalued or not is complicated and depends on a lot of factors. The key question in my mind is: Is gold more valuable in terms of US dollars because it is becoming more valuable, or because the value of US dollars, the prevailing medium of exchange, is declining?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6772c658a9ce2de9ba987109f7782764", "text": "\"Gold may have some \"\"intrinsic value\"\" but it cannot be accurately determined by investors by any known valuation techniques. In fact, if you were to apply the dividend discount model of John Burr Williams - a variation of which is the basis of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and the basis of most valuation techniques - gold would have zero intrinsic value because it produces no cash flow. Legendary focus investor Warren Buffett argues that investing in gold is pure speculation because of the reason mentioned above. As others have mentioned, gold prices are affected by supply and demand, but the bigger influence on the price of gold is how the economy is. Gold is seen as a store of value because, according to some, it does not \"\"lose value\"\" unlike paper currency during inflation. In inflationary times, demand increases so gold prices do go up, which is why gold behaves similar to a commodity but has far less uses. It is difficult to argue whether or not gold gains or loses value because we can't determine the intrinsic value of gold, and anyone who attempts to justify any given price is pulling blinders over your eyes. It is indisputable that, over history, gold represents wealth and that in the past century and the last decade, gold prices rise in inflationary conditions as people dump dollars for gold, and it has fallen when the purchasing power of currency increases. Many investors have talked about a \"\"gold bubble\"\" by arguing that gold prices are inflated because of inflation and the Fed's money policy and that once interest rates rise, the money supply will contract and gold will fall, but again, nobody can say with any reasonable accuracy what the fair value of gold at any given point is. This article on seeking alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/112794-the-intrinsic-value-of-gold gives a quick overview, but it is also vague because gold can't be accurately priced. I wouldn't say that gold has zero intrinsic value because gold is not a business so traditional models are inappropriate, but I would say that gold *certainly * doesn't have a value of $1,500 and it's propped so high only because of investor expectation. In conclusion, I do not believe you can accurately state whether gold is undervalued or overvalued - you must make judgments based on what you think about the future of the market and of monetary policy, but there are too many variables to be accurate consistently.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11dcc15ec506ffc8bc2c15e086f79915", "text": "\"Gold has no \"\"intrinsic\"\" value. None whatsoever. This is because \"\"value\"\" is a subjective term. \"\"Intrinsic value\"\" makes just as much sense as a \"\"cat dog\"\" animal. \"\"Dog\"\" and \"\"cat\"\" are referring to two mutually exclusive animals, therefore a \"\"cat dog\"\" is a nonsensical term. Intrinsic Value: \"\"The actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value ...\"\" Intrinsic value is perceived, which means it is worth whatever you, or a group of people, think it is. Intrinsic value has nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing, to do with anything that exists in reality. The most obvious example of this is the purchase of a copy-right. You are assigning an intrinsic value to a copy-right by purchasing it. However, when you purchase a copy-right you are not buying ink on a page, you are purchasing an idea. Someone's imaginings that, for all intensive purposes, doesn't even exist in reality! By definition, things that do not exist do not have \"\"intrinsic\"\" properties - because things that don't exist, don't have any natural properties at all. \"\"Intrinsic\"\" according to Websters Dictionary: \"\"Belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing ... (the intrinsic brightness of a star).\"\" An intrinsic property of an object is something we know that exists because it is a natural property of that object. Suns emit light, we know this because we can measure the light coming from it. It is not subjective. \"\"Intrinsic Value\"\" is the OPPOSITE of \"\"Intrinsic\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fec1087f096889c0e2f7d49d8e0c4ca4", "text": "One possible downside is contribution limit. The 401K contribution limit is $18,000 for 2016, which is more than three times the limit for IRA contributions ($5,500).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f852b2dde85d5a0bd328e9ec0f79c75", "text": "Your last sentence is key. If you have multiple accounts, it's too easy to lose track over the years. I've seen too many people pass on and the spouse has a tough time tracking the accounts, often finding a prior spouse listed as beneficiary. In this case, your gut is right, simpler is better.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
b103afc1c3e718e2d67204b6c31fd3ed
How do I figure out the market value of used books?
[ { "docid": "64a9c4b0039ace289ff8cdba95b38b0c", "text": "Half of original MSRP at Amazon is a good option for books that are in good condition. Another option would be to use eBay, specifically Half.com.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cb67b41fee650936cc6c7cc95c0eed7", "text": "Regarding the textbooks and technical books, it might be worth checking out sites like Chegg.com or other textbook rental websites. They might buy it from you directly versus trying to sell it on an ebay or amazon. For fiction or nonfiction, amazon and ebay can be tough, but probably worth a look. See what comparables are for your books or similar titles, and if it works, try selling a few. The big problem is that so many sellers are on Amazon these days, that major discounts are commonplace. I've bought hardback 1st editions for less than the cost of economy shipping, so the profit margin is dwindling at best if it's an unpopular or low demand book.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75c9253a244592dfd74e8e91698516a3", "text": "Text Book values drop rather rapidly and fluctuate quite a bit based on when you are selling (January and August-September when semesters generally start) them. I generally sell my old text books on Amazon for 10-15% less than the peak price over the last 6 months or a year if that much data is available (I use camelcamelcamel.com to get historical data). They generally sell pretty quick so I would say it is a fair price.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "de3dd9ff566f4e4440c3035ea0f73ece", "text": "\"For those on a budget, check if your local library has access to / or a copy of the \"\"Standard & Poor's Daily Stock Price Record\"\". Access to that or a similar service may be available as part of your library patronage. If not available it may be available at your metropolitan central library. Comprehensive stock pricing data which provides adjustments for splits, mergers, capital distributions and other relevant events is still a premium product. External link to New York Public Library blog post on subject: http://www.nypl.org/blog/2012/04/09/finding-historical-stock-prices\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfe42c873491ca1cefe0d3f986e96815", "text": "\"I'm not an economist, but I understand the idea of value or \"\"price\"\" is purely \"\"what people agree it to be\"\". The quants and analysts I've worked with always talk about \"\"discovering the price\"\" - it's an unknown until someone says \"\"I will pay X\"\". Are my 2nd hand Nikes worth $20? Put em on ebay to find out. If someone buys them, then yes, 2nd hand Nikes are worth $20. If they don't sell then they're not worth $20. Obviously ebay is not the most efficient market out there. The exchanges attempt to be that with prices varying by fractions of cent in fractions of seconds (milliseconds). EDIT* Perhaps another way to look at it is \"\"What is the 'correct' value of a computer game, say 'Skyrim'?\"\" Your idea of the value of labour and production costs produces some figure. But in the real world, what actually happens? On release day the game is priced at, say, $60. And lots of people say \"\"I will pay $60\"\". Many people don't, but many people do. Months later, Steam has a sale and they suggest Skyrim is now worth $30. Lot's of people who didn't think it was worth $60 do think it is worth $30. The amount of labour that went into is hasn't changed. So what it the true or 'correct' value/price of the game? What is the correct value/price of *amything*? It is *what people will pay for it*.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebb41def0224a718e83f9f53e5a8e812", "text": "\"The textbook answer would be \"\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\"\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35ff05e2d5c742c8cf523afc69864cb9", "text": "Conservative = erring on the side of ascribing a higher EV to the business. Because if you're someone looking to acquire the business, for example, and let's say we're talking about a business that has debt which trades at a discount, it's more conservative to assume that the debt can't necessarily be restructured. To use an extreme example, as you're valuing the business, would it be conservative or aggressive to assume that the debt got magically wiped out altogether? So that's why I'm saying that it's more conservative to use the book value of the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdccd9264950fda9d11e48e23df2b0d9", "text": "What if Kirtsaeng were only acting as a foreign agent of the purchaser? Seems like that would be an easy work around. Instead of selling the book, he could charge a service fee for making the purchase for someone else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ed36d63a9b925c315ab217b16467959", "text": "Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "487f70fefde2260535df8ddd74de4414", "text": "NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59c4d3ea50aad7d39d3a7495aa8e3924", "text": "Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps", "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": "77eace4c4744e927720c62b309b3214e", "text": "Certainly sounds worthwhile to get a CPA to help you with setting up the books properly and learning to maintain them, even if you do it yourself thereafter. What's your own time worth?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c019cab98369192a419c76fde2604a04", "text": "\"I'm not sure what the situation is in Canada, but in the US, the IRS does not look kindly on people overvaluing donations of used goods. The rule is obviously abused quite a bit, but that doesn't mean it's legal! Different used books have different values, usually depending on supply and demand, and there are online databases that make it easy to check the value of a book using a barcode scanner. If you took a book to a used bookstore and they didn't want to buy it, that's because supply greatly exceeds demand... it might be last year's bestseller, for example. In this situation, donating the book to charity and claiming that the book is \"\"worth\"\" more than it's actually worth is really nothing more than cheating on your taxes. You may or may not get caught, but it's certainly not the intent of any tax code to give people a break on their taxes for donating worthless books to a charity which will inevitably just have to recycle or shred them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1b7f7147ecf4016b8209d50d31f589d", "text": "I have sold a few items on ebay. The biggest issue I have with ebay is all of the fees. I am not sure how much has changed recently, but when I was selling stuff it felt like ebay and paypal took a large chunk of the money. I could be wrong, but it seemed like they were getting around 35% or more of my 'profits'. Of course, you then have the shipping fees on top of that, which will run a few bucks on common items. For items that sell for around $20 on ebay, I felt like I was ending up with about $5 in my pocket. I have used Amazon to sell used books, though I haven't done that for about a year or so. They had no fees for listing items, and the item remains listed for about 90 days. If it sells, they process the payment and can deposit it into your bank account or provide an Amazon gift certificate. I forget Amazon's fees, but I remember that it didn't seem to be as frustrating as the ebay/paypal price structure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b6f090327ec6cce7d14b1a6d77924e4", "text": "Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fb6df68bbd3c28f9396ec52c362d2fa", "text": "If you're willing to pay a fee, you can probably just get a commercial appraiser to give you a valuation. In Australia I think it's around $100-200.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02b8a662668832af66709dbeb39365ad", "text": "To determine the value of one's life, instead of rating happiness from 1 to 10 every day in pink ink in a secret diary, use the concept of mercantile exchange to determine the value of your existence. First, offer your time for some initial price ($10) to some investors (Bob). Then, create an order book where anyone can make a bid or ask for your time. For example, Bob creates a sell order for 10 min of your time for $20. Mary creates a buy order for 10 min of your time for $20--Bob sells 10 min of your time to Mary for $20. Based on the supply and demand for your time, you could determine the value of your existence. Obviously, your time would no longer be yours, but it's interesting to consider nontheless and precisely equivalent to the process that determines stock price. (Ignoring the minutiae of order books and IPOs.)", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
bc5d5fc5502cea49877e0da2d0a1b296
Why are wire transfers and other financial services in Canada so much more expensive than in Europe?
[ { "docid": "2d08a71e70cc24b74d048f9240257fd4", "text": "I don't believe there is any particular structural or financial reason that outgoing wire transfers cost so much in Canada, their costs are no higher than other countries (and lower than many). Wires seem to be an area where the Canadian banks have decided people don't comparison shop, so it's not a competitive advantage to offer a better price. The rates you quoted are on the low side: $80 for a largish international wire is not unusual, and HSBC charges up to $150! There are several alternative ways to transfer money domestically in Canada. If the recipient banks at the same bank, it's possible to go into a branch and transfer money directly from your own account to their account (I've never been charged for this). The transfer is immediate. But it couldn't be done online, last time I checked. For transfers where you don't know the recipients bank account, you can pay online with Interac E-Transfers, offered by most Canadian banks. It's basically e-mailing money. It usually costs $1 to $1.50 per transfer, and has limits on how much you can send per day/week. Each of the banks also have a bill-pay service, but unlike similar services in the US (where they mail a paper check if the recipient isn't on their system), each Canadian bank has a limited number of possible payees (mostly utilities, governments, major stores).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7473ce484f68f1295a7f4e0a770daffc", "text": "\"because bankers are crooks is a very close answer. Just accept the truth that financial industry is the only service industry that could turn into giant parasite chopping pieces from real economy. I am not anti-financial, because greed is not banker's fault, but just one significant part of human nature. Every human being has greed and fear built in it. But financial industry is the only one which is built on exploiting greed and fear. Governments are throwing gasoline canister into that fire in desperate extinguish attempts, trying to \"\"regulate\"\" but only making it worse. With all that \"\"counter-cybercrime\"\", \"\"counter-terrorism\"\" and \"\"counter-everything\"\" efforts, ordinary people will be hurt as always.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6117285b4f91fa403a869d9aae1f0b06", "text": "Transaction fees are part of the income for banks, and as we know they are profit making corporations just like any other Company. The differene is that instead of buying and packing and Selling groceries, they buy and package and sell Money. Within the rules and the market they will try to maximize their profit, exactly like Apple or GM or Walmart and so on. Sweden and Holland are part of the European union and the leaders of the union has defined (by law) that certain types of transactions should be done without fees. In order to transfer Money from your Swedish account to the Dutch account you do what is called a SEPA transaction, which should be done in one day without cost to you as a customer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area Gunnar", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "737584b1df2438d3c2880417457d2498", "text": "Many of the Financial intermediaries in the business, have extraordinary high requirements for opening an account. For example to open an account in Credit Suisse one will need 1 million US dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f29b80c81442469dd8dbda70c25622d5", "text": "There are so many ways to transfer money from Canada to US, so the only problem choosing the most reliable, cheap, and fast way. PS: Interac e-Transfer is unfortunately only available inside Canada. I know nothing about XE.com, so I can't recommend it. There should be other ways to transfer money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac8abccf51bd6ddeaff31ce498e4be7b", "text": "\"You are right in insisting upon a proper B2B contract in any business relationship. You wish to reduce your risk and be compensated fairly. In addition to the cost and complexity of international wire transfers, the US companies may also be considering the fact that as an international contractor in a relatively hard-to-reach jurisdiction, payments to you place the company at higher risk than payments to a domestic contractor. By insisting upon PayPal or similar transmitters, they are reducing their internal complexity and reducing their financial exposure to unfulfilled/disputed contract terms. Therefore, wire payments are \"\"hard\"\" in an internal business sense, as well as in a remittance transfer reporting sense. The internal business procedure will likely be the hardest to overcome--changing risk management is harder than filling out forms.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bd13694ea76c3b61a2bc7bcd5ddfef6", "text": "Many European countires allow you to an account for non-residents. You have to appear in the bank personally to open it, some of them even to get your own tax number for non-residents from the local government. I'm not sure if you get a Visa (Electron) chip card immediatelly or you have to wait for like 3 months before being issued one. I've heard that getting a tax number for non-residents and opening a bank account is easily done in one day in Brezice, Republic of Slovenia. They seem to have agile local bureaucracy and banks, since many pople from neighbouring (non-EU) countries (used to) come there to open an EU bank account. Funds can be transfered via Internet banking - US banks have that, do they? SWIFT and IBAN codes are used for international money transfer. But it takes some time (days!) for it to arrive to destination. Tansfers below $20000 per month or per transaction are considered normal, but for amouts above that the destination bank might ask you to explain the purpose, to prove it is not illegal. Some of them accept the explanaiton in writing (they forward it to the regulator that tracks such large transfers), some of them ask you to appear there in person for an interview and to sign a statement. Can't believe US banks are still issuing paing magnet stripe cards like it's still 1980s. I'd expect Europe to be 10 years behind USA in technology, but this seems to be a weird reverse. I've beed using Internet banking with one-time passwd tokens and TAN lists for almost 10 years, and chip cards exclusivley for over 5y. Can't remeber the last time I've seen mag stripe card only. American Express (event the regular green one) got the chip at least 5 years ago. And it is accepted regularly in Europe. Alegedly it's more popular in Europe (although Mastercard is a definite #1, with Visa close to that) that in USA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9147fcc19c40f60defcb41b243f3364", "text": "\"Wire transfers are not the same as ACH transfers. I regular transfer money between Chase, Ally, Capital One 360 and Fidelity and have never been charged a fee because I never do wire transfers. (The default for all these banks is ACH; you must explicitly choose wire transfers.) EDIT: to answer the modified question. https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/difference-between-wire-transfer-and-ach.html \"\"One of the fastest ways to send money is via wire transfer. Although a wire transfer can take days, in most cases a wire transfer takes place within minutes. It is a direct bank-to-bank transaction that allows you to move money from your account directly into the account of someone else.\"\" \"\"While it may seem similar to a wire transfer, a transaction accomplished with the help of an automated clearing house (ACH) is not the same thing. ... When you arrange for the electronic transfer of funds, all of the information is included in a batch, which is then sent to the clearing house. All of the transactions in the batch are then handled by the clearing house, rather than as a direct bank-to-bank transaction. ... As a result, your money is not available as quickly as it often is with a wire transfer. The ACH process can be more convenient and is less expensive, but it also takes a little bit longer.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f03a5a32f7df5a49a93eb16e4e7bd82", "text": "Because the standard contract is for 125,000 euros. http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/g10/euro-fx_contractSpecs_futures.html You don't want to use Microsoft as an analogy. You want to use non financial commodities. Most are settled in cash, no delivery. But in the early 80's, the Hunt brothers caused a spectacular short squeeze by taking delivery sending the spot price to $50. And some businesses naturally do this, buying metal, grain, etc. no reason you can't actually get the current price of $US/Euro if you need that much.", "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": "0a7ace8f106dc0b13a9d2fc529f507e6", "text": "I doubt you're going to find anywhere that will give you free outgoing wires unless you're depositing a huge amount of money like $500K or more. An alternative would be to find a bank that offers everything else you want and use XETrade for very low cost online wires. I've used them in the past and can recommend their services. Most banks won't charge for incoming wires. I have accounts at E*Trade Bank that don't charge any fees and I can do everything online. You might want to check them out. E*Trade also offers global trading accounts which allow you to have accounts denominated in a few foreign currencies (EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD and HKD I think). I don't think there is a fee for moving money between the different currencies. If your goal is simply to diversify your money into different currencies, you could deposit money there instead of wiring it to other banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08779e8c2ebc378095806f40072fea64", "text": "Well, I know why the Rabobank in the Netherlands does it. I can go back around one year and a half with my internet banking. But I can only go further back (upto 7 years) after contacting the bank and paying €5,- per transcript (one transcript holds around a month of activities). I needed a year worth of transcripts for my taxes and had to cough up more than €50. EDIT It seems they recently changed their policy in a way that you can request as many transcripts as you like for a maximum cost of €25,- so the trend to easier access is visible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afbb0d017059f0ed498dfe39c919d4e2", "text": "For the first part of your question, I think the answer is a combination of three things: (1) Bigger companies have leverage to negotiate better deals due to volume. (2) Some of these companies are also taking bookings from outside the US for people traveling to the US (either directly or through affiliates). This means that they also have income in other currencies, so they may not actually be making as many wire transfers as you think. They simply keep a bank account in Europe, for example, in Euros to receive and send money in the Eurozone as needed. They balance the exchange on their books internally in this case, without actually sending funds through the international banking system. Similarly in other parts of the world. (3) These companies are not going to make a wire transfer for every transaction, in any case. They are going to transfer big sums of money to an account abroad to balance things on a longer-term basis (weekly, month, etc.) Then they will make individual payments to service providers out of the overseas account in between these larger, international transfers. For the second part of your question, I think there's probably no way for a new business to get the advantages of scale unless you've got significant capital backing your endeavor that would make it plausible that you'll be transferring in scale. I don't see any reason in principle that the new company could not establish bank accounts abroad and try to execute the plan outlined in #2 above except that it would require some set-up costs to do the proper paperwork in each country, probably to travel, and to initially fund the various accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc8a52d8f9465b44b6cbc258d26b4af2", "text": "\"Owning any sort of business is an absolute nightmare for a \"\"US Person\"\" not on US soil. It has nothing to do with money, but the fact that compliance costs are huge and it's only getting worse with the whole fatca nonesense.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9440f6a0c8c21dafac732d0fc850d408", "text": "It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d75920d84097b33a1bc7c02b04354336", "text": "\"At this point, a great deal of the world's wealth exists only in electronic form, and just as you can write a check or pay by debit card and trust the banks will handle it, banks can conduct wire transfers\"\" through higher-level banking networks. In the US, when there is a need to convert physical money to electronic or vice versa, it is typically handled by armored car and armed guard transfer between a bank and the local Federal Reserve Bank office. Physical money is moved around only when necessary, and for as short a distance as possible, to the most secure facilities possible, to minimize risk. I can't vouch for how it's managed elsewhere in the world, where the networks and repository banks may not be as available. I would presume (I would hope!) that the same general concepts and approaches are followed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acd5b147c0a42ce678536ffaa6a0db0b", "text": "Canadians can email or text each other money through Interac. It is fast - the longest it's ever taken for me is 20 minutes, often it's less - and secure. You don't need to know each other's banking details or even real names. I've used this to send money to my children, each of whom uses a different bank than I do, and they've used it to send money to friends to pay for concert tickets and the like. You add a security question so if someone else got to the email or text first, they wouldn't get the money. I also get an email once the transfer has gone through, so I know they got it. Some banks limit this to $1000 a day, mine to $3000. Typically there is no fee for the recipient and $1 or $2 for the sender. A dollar on $1000 is way better than a 2 or 3% cc processing fee. But even for $30, a dollar is like 3% and you didn't need to apply for anything or set anything up, and your customers don't need a credit card or to trust you with their credit card details. I keep meeting people who don't know about this. Everyone with a Canadian bank account and an email address or smartphone should know about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d80dc46153b70c74eb54261f370d06aa", "text": "My current favorite service for this kind of transfer is Transferwise. The fees are quite low when compared to the 2.5-3% by high-street banks for currency conversion, to which you need to add the international wire transfer fee, and it's often a lot faster, as they split it into two domestic transfers while the international part + currency conversion happens internally to Transferwise.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
a40790b2d490d0dedc0bbd7d1fda4944
How should I interpret this industry research?
[ { "docid": "7c81dbb5bcf9de91c3000669d11ebe0d", "text": "As BobbyScon said in the comments, invest in a company that is developing in that field. Or invest in a company which supplies that field. The people who got rich in the California gold rush were those selling shovels and other miners' supplies. Or bet against whatever you think this will displace. If automobiles are the hot new thing, it might be a bad time to invest in harness leather. Or ... figure out how else it might impact the economy and invest appropriately. But you have to do that evaluation yourself. Or ignore it and stick with your existing strategy, which should have been diversified enough to deliver reasonable results whether this sector takes off or not. Remember that if someone gives you a free tip, they are probably just hoping to pump up the value of their own stock rather than help you.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "a3d0faea96982b5a5ffaa1971f1df44c", "text": "No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40f4a7e8f99e698206c773969beac93b", "text": "I've tried to argue this to some close friends who bought homes, pre/post-crisis, if the crisis ever ended, they thought it was ridiculous. There is a clear fulcrum where renting makes more sense than buying, when appropriate inputs of data are entered into the model. I think Khan Academy did a good 10-minute run down on the subject and used a relatively good model, as well. Further than that, I read the first few paragraphs and stopped reading, it was a commercial. I was shocked. The entire thing up till' 2 paragraphs in is literally a commercial. The supposed 'antagonist', explicitly implied by the title isn't actually an antagonist, it's a click-bait commercial -article posing as a real article, (imitation), that actually might have some real science below the commercial, as you've indicated, but that part also sounds like junk finance; to sell the idea to consumers that they should in fact buy homes (instead of rent), and get loans from banks (preferably this one), and do anything to achieve that, if need be, even move in with their parents. This financial institution appears to have a sophisticated public relations marketing team doing their commercials-posing-as-news campaign(s). Very interesting to see the marketing beast morph itself into something so sophisticated, as to contain such clear imitation, junk science, and click-bait. I wonder what kind of penetration they are getting with this model, and what percentage of those see it for what it is. I suppose that would be a big-data question, answerable through analytics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20900f7a5bd31bbc74a885b9f07dfb6d", "text": "\"Hey there - thanks for your input. The internet can be a confusing place sometimes, especially when you don't know what to look for. I've subscribed to usenet (for the \"\"white papers\"\") but so far to no avail. I'll definitely search for the Moody's paper!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed7e7d07942b3b313119a9a8f15276f7", "text": "Did you read your own link? It lists a lot of conflicting studies and concludes that there is no consensus as a result of those. Even if you were to cherry pick and select the worst case study, the difference is still less than 5 points, which is too small to be really meaningful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c254be71c248736eb32b012f17e5736", "text": "\"**The paper’s findings are preliminary and have not yet been subjected to peer review.** &gt;\"\"The paper’s findings are preliminary and have not yet been subjected to peer review. And the authors stressed that even if their results hold up, their research leaves important questions unanswered, particularly about how the minimum wage has affected individual workers and businesses. The paper does not, for example, address whether displaced workers might have found jobs in other cities or with companies such as Uber that are not included in their data.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b648eff366f6e5637857115c7754cff1", "text": "Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba49ca39544368ecad8cf6654975c449", "text": "I think many of you are making unrelated comments and taking unjustified conclusions from the news, without reading the research. Many of the mentioned share provisions are not exclusive to Silicon Valley, technology firms, or the rest of Private Equity (i.e. ex-VC). The paper says: &gt;These generous terms are not necessarily evidence of active post-money valuation manipulation and could simply be due to a difficult fund raising environment. And: &gt;Importantly, our discussion does not imply that these terms were given for the purpose of manipulating SpaceX’s value. That is not to say that I am not skeptical of many of the business models and valuations of the companies in the sample, but that is off the research topic. What the authors suggests is that valuation is often miscalculated by many people in the industry, and provides some relevant cases: from mutual funds who market those shares at the value of the most recent funding round, regardless of share provisions; to employees that wrongly perceive their wealth. I have some trouble accepting Brownian Motion to model exit prices (or pretty much anything else), it seems a bit off from reality, but nevertheless I think the paper is worth the read.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1c310dd0d067d351747c3cdf07f7ded", "text": "\"What you're thinking of is more market making kind of activity, HFT algo's thrive on this; having information faster than anyone else. This type of activity could also likely be lumped into what is considered top-down analysis as opposed to bottom-up (which is what most mutual fund equity research involves). Again, the more important aspect is, what does the company you are applying to use! Top-down analysis means that you are forecasting the revenue drivers for a company using macro-economic analysis. For example, let's say I'm investing in Chinese cement manufacturer's, what implications does Chinese interest rate policy have on infra-structure expansion and how does that drive revenue for this specific company. I might then look at margins, etc. to get an EPS estimate. Part of this could fall into secular investing, too. Let's say I like LCD panel glass because of this consortium, I might take a look at 5 companies and then find the ones I think would benefit most from this. The problem with top-down is it tends not to be as much of a deep-dive, and its hard to pick individual companies because of it. Bottom-up tends to be more analytical and is what most pitches would be based around. The most important thing I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they are just different, and every investor has their own style. Bottom-up analysis, which would be closer to what an equity research analyst would be doing on the sell-side, is analyzing what bottom-line indicators drive revenue and how are those expanding. For example, lets say I'm looking at search providers (i.e. Baidu, Google, Yahoo, etc.) I'd be looking at Cost-Per-Thousand-Clicks (CPTC) and number of clicks on the website. Multiply the two and I get revenue (very simplified version) for clicks business. I might then also forecast other revenue driving segments and try to understand how they are growing/pricing at an individual segment level (i.e. business services or mobile advertising). I'd then break down costs/margins for each segment and forecast those out. I could then get a forward EPS, get a range of multiples I believe it could trade in (i.e. I think the multiple will trade up/down), to get a target price. Also, I would likely do a DCF analysis on forward earnings to get a \"\"fair market value,\"\" and then try to triangulate a price. I would also be looking at stuff like management teams and industry trends, too, but bottom line, I'm pitching a company because I think it is undervalued and will outperform competitors **in the long run**. This type of work tends to be more research oriented and is what most (not all) mutual funds use when analyzing companies. Since mutual funds tend to have longer holding periods (2-10 years), as opposed to short-term, it's harder to justify investing in a company only because it has a short-term catalyst. Anecdotally, it's also easier to present in a written thesis because the numbers tend to be more concrete and easier to forecast than top-down (which have wider target ranges). Your thought process that catalyst + industry context = market beating returns isn't wrong, it's just that every company thinks about investing differently, and it's important to tailor the report to that group's style.\"", "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": "" }, { "docid": "31b0b7d909da60becd8d824cb46ac088", "text": "Yes, it's true (from a BB perspective). This isn't the 80's where M&amp;A's are the money makers. This isn't the 90's where IPO's are the cash cows. Going forward the new products, especially the OTC derivatives market and FI are going to be where a lot of resources are pooled and where revenues are generated. Ask yourself the question, why do you want to go into equity research as opposed to another product?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6490424e5263580f16ebbb1e729d423", "text": "Despite a fair number of views, no one besides @mbhunter answered, so I'll gather the findings of my own research here. Hopefully, this will help others in similar situations. If you spot any errors, please let me know!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c228b923306614c984e13541acecbf3", "text": "My company has a dashboard that basically does this. We select industries / companies we want to be notified of and we get an email in outlook when a new analyst note, research report, or SEC filing is posted on that industry or company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "229054e33508fbf929dbb10d15cdcee7", "text": "\"One of the things I have enjoyed about consulting is the exposure to multiple companies and multiple business units within those companies. In the year I have been at The Gunter Group, I have already worked with multiple clients on projects that span across the respective organizations. It has been very interesting to contrast the clients and more specifically the corporate cultures that exist within those companies. I have participated in and watched various projects being driven in different parts of a client's business and it is interesting to see which projects have been, are, and will be successful. The other day I was reading a report of some analysis done by one of the world's largest and most respected consulting firms. The analysis was essentially outlining a path for success for a broad spectrum of projects of varied scopes and complexities. The analysis, which was very good by the way, touched on a lot of elements of the business that would impact the likelihood of project success. Elements like governance, data analysis, process design, etc. The analysis and the accompanying recommendations were undoubtedly sound given the caliber of the firm, the background research done to support the report, and my own confirmation based on what I have picked up about the client. I try and get my hands on these types of reports whenever possible to see how \"\"the big boys\"\" are doing it, to shape my own thinking, and to have examples of successful presentations. I am, however, always surprised that these reports fail to mention what I consider to be a very big influence on the success of a project and ultimately the success of the organization as a whole. At their core, companies are merely people. A group of people with a collective identity; a corporate culture if you will. Reflecting back on my many interactions with the people that make up these organizations it has become very evident to me that a collaborative corporate culture is a huge discriminator in determining the success of any project. Although it is a macro factor, the collaborative spirit of an organization transcends everything that the company does and/or attempts to do. Here is an example to give context of the premise I am talking about. At client A, the project team I worked with was designing an extremely innovative, complex, and challenging system that has the potential to alter the way they do business. Without going into too much detail, it was a massive undertaking with relatively limited resourcing. At client B, the scope of work I was involved in was relatively straightforward and mirrored business practices at other organizations. The bulk of the effort on my part was driving the creation and adoption of a framework to promote cross functional interaction amongst project teams. A very realistic undertaking with appropriate resourcing. Below are vignettes that illustrate typical exchanges in both organizations. In both organizations I have been directed to connect with a particular individual or group of individuals as it was thought that our respective works may be related in some fashion. Client A: Me - \"\"Let me give you a brief overview of the project I am working on. John Doe recommended I connect with you as your project may intersect with mine in some manner. We may be able to help each other.\"\" (Continue with my overview) Other Party - \"\"Wow, this is great. I actually have really in depth knowledge of X and would love to get involved in the work you are doing. I am actually simultaneously driving Y effort and it would be great if we were aligned. At a high level we are both supporting strategy A so connecting now would really set us up for success. Feel free to include me on your future meetings and I will pass along our high level overview. Also, have you thought about connecting with So and So? They are working in the Z space on a project and it may help to drive your project forward as well.\"\" Client B: Me - \"\"Let me give you a brief overview of the project I am working on. John Doe recommended I connect with you as your project may intersect.......\"\" Other Party - (Interrupts) \"\"Well we have already gotten our project approved at such and such level and we have found that we really don't have any interdependencies with your project.\"\" Me - \"\"Oh, OK. Well I am not really looking to create additional work for anyone. I am just looking to leverage the work we are both already doing. We may be able to help each other.\"\" Other Party - (Interrupts again) \"\"Our project team is really busy and we are on a tight deadline. We don't have the resources we need. I have told John Doe time and again we need more help but until we get it I just really need to focus on X.\"\" Me - \"\"OK. Well how about I jump in to what it is we are actually doing and if there aren't any opportunities for collaboration or any synergies to be gained from working together that is fine. I just wanted to be proactive about connecting the dots across the organization. (Continue with my overview) Other Party - \"\"...........*crickets*...........\"\" (Meeting concludes.....) These aren't depictions of a single event. They are aggregations of month's of interactions that give a good representation of single events in a variety of contexts on a daily basis. Of course, there are exceptions. However, I have found that exceptions within both cultures are extremely rare based on my personal experience. This only furthers my point. Can you begin to see why a collaborative corporate culture is so foundational to the success of any endeavor regardless of scope, complexity, etc? The other aspect that adds to the importance of a sound corporate culture is the self fulfilling nature of culture. Which organization do you think inspires future collaborative behavior? Even those people that want to collaborate within client B are consistently met with resistance. Those in client A are inspired by the positive interactions, enhanced results, and they are more likely to actively seek out others to help and work with. Both trajectories are accelerated in opposite directions just by the nature of the prevailing culture. So how do you create and engender a culture that embodies collaboration? That my friends is a question I don't pretend to have all the answers too. Maybe I'll be so lucky to figure that one out someday......\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c8154fe3cddb90294b0889e483b1f0a", "text": "Technical analysis is insufficient. You're halfway to figuring it out if you start to question why a 50 day moving average vs 200 vs 173. Invest in companies that are attractively valued vs. their sales/growth/divends/anythingelsereal", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4e4d18eeb2f79ae8f96b4938e906628", "text": "\"all the other answers are spot on, but look at it this way. really all you mean when you say \"\"building equity\"\" is \"\"accumulating wealth\"\". if that is the goal, then having her invest the money in a brokerage (e.g. ira) account makes a lot more sense. if you can't afford the apartment without her, then you can't afford to pay out her portion of the equity in the future. which means she is not building equity, you are just borrowing money from her. the safest and simplest thing for you to do is to agree on a number that does not include \"\"equity\"\". to be really safe, you might want to both sign something in writing that says she will never have an equity stake unless you agree to it in writing. it doesn't have to be anything fancy. in fact, the shorter the better. i am thinking about 3 sentences should do the trick. if you feel you absolutely have to borrow money from her on a monthly basis to afford your mortgage, then i recommend you make it an unsecured loan. just be sure to specify the interest rate (even if it is zero), and the repayment terms (and ideally, late payment penalties). again, nothing fancy, 10 sentences maybe. e.g. \"\"john doe will borrow x$ per month, until jane doe vacates the apartment. after such time, john doe will begin repaying the loan at y$ per month....\"\" that said, borrowing money from friends and family almost never turns out well. at the very least, you need to save up a few months of rent so that if you do break up, you have time to find another roommate. disclaimer: i do not have any state-issued professional licenses.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
9fe328d07b58b4bf61a44fa3bbc5ec4a
Stocks vs. High-yield Bonds: Risk-Reward, Taxes?
[ { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a49db2e2d205b37bb8e4240e6f249904", "text": "When credit locks up, junk bond prices fall rapidly, and you see more defaults. The opportunity to make money with junk is to buy a diversified collection of them when the market declines. Look at the charts from some of the mutual funds or ETFs like PIMCO High Yield Instl (PHIYX), or Northeast Investors (NTHEX). Very volatile stuff. Keep in mind that junk bonds are not representative of the economy as a whole -- they cluster in certain industries. Retail and financials are big industry segments for junk. Also keep in mind that the market for these things is not as liquid as the stock market. If your investment choice is really a sector investment, you might be better served by investing in sector funds with stocks that trade every day versus bonds whose market price may be difficult to determine.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "564005dc162c72c98e107c637b036256", "text": "For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6ac2bcc59fee8f3220b9dbae3fc484a", "text": "\"A few points that I would note: Call options - Could the bond be called away by the issuer? This is something to note as some bonds may end up not being as good as one thought because of this option that gets used. Tax considerations - Are you going for corporate, Treasury, or municipals? Different ones may have different tax consequences to note if you aren't holding the bond in a tax-advantaged account,e.g. Roth IRA, IRA or 401k. Convertible or not? - Some bonds are known as \"\"convertibles\"\" since the bond comes with an option on the stock that can be worth considering for some kinds of bonds. Inflation protection - Some bonds like TIPS or series I savings bonds can have inflation protection built into them that can also be worth understanding. In the case of TIPS, there are principal adjustments while the savings bond will have a change in its interest rate. Default risk - Some of the higher yield bonds may have an issuer go under which is another way one may end up with equity in a company rather than getting their money back. On the other side, for some municipals one could have the risk of the bond not quite being as good as one thought like some Detroit bonds that may end up in a different result given their bankruptcy but there are also revenue bonds that may not meet their target for another situation that may arise. Some bonds may be insured though this requires a bit more research to know the credit rating of the insurer. As for the latter question, what if interest rates rise and your bond's value drops considerably? Do you hold it until maturity or do you try to sell it and get something that has a higher yield based on face value?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ed4fcf38b6b750eddd20aed017cac45", "text": "\"The two are not incompatible. This is particularly true of Glaxo and Pfizer, two drug companies operating in roughly the same markets with similar products. Many \"\"good\"\" companies offer a combination of decent yields and growth. Glaxo and Pfizer are both among them. There is often (not always), a trade-off between high yield and high growth. All other things being equal, a company that pays out a larger percentage of its profits as dividends will exhibit lower growth. But a company may have a high yield because of a depressed price due to short term problems. When those problems are fixed, the company and stock grows again, giving you the best (or at least the better) of both worlds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07840ca3531beffb6cc1cd5266218a0c", "text": "\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \"\"loss harvesting\"\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \"\"benefits\"\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a0cddee37083f56a9630e1a143bc67", "text": "This is subject to some amount of opinion, but I think that Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are closest to what you describe. These are issued by the US Treasury like a treasury bond, but the rate is adjusted for inflation. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tips_glance.htm I see your comment about taxes. TIPS are exempt from state and local taxes, but they are subject to federal tax on the income and on the growth of the principal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67a8f8a83db55a5a110890deeebbdcf3", "text": "\"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around \"\"stocks\"\" and \"\"bonds\"\". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69d52c5b1de2ac2f383d5cc2b8f189c9", "text": "Because stock markets don't always go up, sometimes they go down. Sometimes they go way down. Between 2007 and 2009 the S&P 500 lost over half its value. So if in 2007 you thought you had just enough to retire on, in 2009 you'd suddenly find you had only half of what you needed! Of course over the next few years, many of the stocks recovered value, but if you had retired in 2008 and depended on a 401k that consisted entirely of stocks, you'd have been forced to sell a bunch of stocks near the bottom of the market to cover your retirement living expenses. Bonds go up and down too, but usually not to the same extent as stocks, and ideally you aren't selling the bonds for your living expenses, just collecting the interest that's due you for the year. Of course, some companies and cities went bankrupt in the 2008 crisis too, and they stopped making interest payments. Another risk is that you may be forced to retire before you were actually planning to. As you age you are at increasing risk for medical problems that may force an early retirement. Many businesses coped with the 2008 recession by laying off their older workers who were earning higher salaries. It wasn't an easy environment for older workers to find jobs in, so many folks were forced into early retirement. Nothing is risk free, so you need to make an effort to understand what the risks are, and decide which ones you are comfortable with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac97477afe8baf421d2bcf1b23bf05dd", "text": "You have a misunderstanding about what it is. Absent differential tax treatment buybacks and dividens are the exact same. period. You're saying it yourself, not buying back stock so they can pay out dividends. What the impetus might be is irrelevant. Dividends are a use of funds competing equally with investments or higher salary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1de019cd6cceea000d667a6014036f01", "text": "Series I Savings Bonds would be another option that have part of their return indexed to inflation though currently they are yielding 1.64% through April 30, 2016 though some may question how well is that 3% you quote as an inflation rate. From the first link: Series I savings bonds are a low-risk savings product. While you own them they earn interest and protect you from inflation. You may purchase electronic I bonds via TreasuryDirect or paper I bonds with your IRS tax refund. As a TreasuryDirect account holder, you can purchase, manage, and redeem I bonds directly from your web browser. TIPS vs I Bonds if you want to compare these products that are rather safe in terms of avoiding a nominal loss. This would be where a portion of the funds could go, not all of them at once.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "bffcf4ef1809546937edf2f201fc6711", "text": "Distributions of interest from bonds are taxable as income by the Federal, state and municipal (if applicable) government. End of year fund distributions are subject to capital gains taxes as well. You can minimize taxation by: Note that the only bonds that are guaranteed safe are US Government obligations, as the US government has unlimited taxation powers and the ability to print money. Municipal obligations are generally safe, but there is a risk that municipal governments will default. You can also avoid taxation by not realizing gains. If you buy individual stocks or tax-efficient mutual funds, you will have minimal tax liability until you sell. Also, just wanted to point out that bonds do not equal safety and money markets do not pay sufficient interest to offset inflation, you need a diversified portfolio. Five year treasury notes are only paying 1.3% now, and bond prices drop when interest rates go up. Given the level of Federal spending and the wind-down of the war, its likely that rates will rise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59e762b8f5ee752485d2454dd9fec47d", "text": "You can buy and sell stocks, if you like. You'll have to pay taxes on any profits. And short-term is speculating, not investing, and has high risk", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a634c15180a16af1d8b1f91c2d4ef48e", "text": "Not sure how this has got this far with no obvious discussion about the huge tax advantages of share buy backs vs dividend paying. Companies face a very simple choice with excess capital - pay to shareholders in the form of a taxable dividend, invest in future growth where they expect to make more than $1 for every $1 invested, or buy back the equivalent amount of stock on the market, thus concentrating the value of each share the equivalent amount with no tax issues. Of these, dividends are often by far the worst choice. Virtually all sane shareholders would just rather the company put the capital to work or concentrate the value of their shares by taking many off the market rather than paying a taxable dividend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9a3c0c2284554ce69d0c8db28dcfdcc", "text": "\"Remember that risk should correlate with returns, in an investment. This means that the more risk you take on, the more return you should be receiving, in an efficient marketplace. That's why putting your money in a savings account might earn you <1% interest right now, but putting money in the stock market averages ~7% returns over time. You should be very careful not to use the word 'interest' when you mean 'returns'. In your post, you are calling capital gains (the increase in value of owned property) 'interest'. This may be understating in your head the level of risk associated with property ownership. In the case of the bank, they are not in the business of home construction. Rather than take that risk themselves, they would rather finance many projects being done by construction companies that know the business. The bank has a high degree of certainty of getting its money back, because its mortgages are protected by the value of the property. Part of the benefit of an efficient marketplace is that risk gets 'bought' by individuals who want it. This means that people with a low-risk tolerance (such as banks, people on fixed incomes, seniors, etc.) can avoid risk, and people with a high risk tolerance (stock investors, young people with high income, etc.) can take on that risk for higher average returns. The bank's reasoning should remind you of the risk associated with property ownership: increases in value are not a sure thing. If you do not understand the risk of your investment, you cannot be certain that you are being well compensated for that risk. Note also that most countries place regulations on their banks that limit the amount of their funds that can be placed in 'higher risk' asset classes. Typically, this something along the lines of \"\"If someone places a deposit with your bank, you can only invest that deposit in a low-risk debt-based asset [ie: you can take money deposited by customer A and use it to finance a mortgage for customer B]\"\". This is done in an attempt to prevent collapse of the financial sector, if risky investments start failing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a67e97c315357cc1ac6335a6f29b8e79", "text": "\"There are tax free bonds in the United States. They are for things like public housing and other urban projects. They are tax free for everyone but only rich people buy them. Why? The issue is that the tax free nature of the bond is included in its yield. So rather than yielding say a 5% return, they figure that the owner is getting 20% off due to not paying taxes. As a result, they only give a 4% return but are as risky as a 5% return investment. Net result, only rich people invest in tax free bonds. \"\"Rich\"\" is defined here to mean people paying a 20% tax on long term investment returns. Or take the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which has been in the news recently. Again, it is technically open to everyone. But there is also a standard deduction that is open to everyone. For the typical family, state and local taxes might be 5% of income. So for a family making $100k a year, that's $5k. The same family can take a $13k or so standard deduction instead of itemizing. So why would they take the smaller deduction? As a practical matter, two groups take the SALT deduction. People rich enough to pay more than $13k in state and local taxes and people who also take the mortgage interest deduction. So it helps a lot of people who are rich quite a bit. And it helps a few middle class people some. But if you are lower middle class with a $30k mortgage on a tiny house and paying 4% interest, then that's only $1200 a year. Add in property taxes of $3000 and SALT of $2.8k and that's only $7k. Even if the person gives $3k to charity, the $13k deduction is a lot better and requires less paperwork. Contrast that with someone who has $500k mortgage at 3.6% interest. That's $18k in interest alone. Add in a SALT of $7k and property taxes of $50k, and there's $75k of itemized deductions, much better than $13k. Now a $7k donation to charity is entirely deductible. And even after the mortgage interest deduction goes away, the other $64k remains.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
b121ef81dbdb41992571752b8d87e8f5
What's behind the long secular bull market in U.S. Treasuries?
[ { "docid": "74fa0dddf06e3dd9017585e8ebc92d6f", "text": "I believe that it's largely irrational, fueled largely by foreign investors that are afraid to invest anywhere else. There are a few people out there right now who are writing about this: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-treasuries-largest-bubble-in-world-history-says-nia-2011-08-30 http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-08-25/markets/30080511_1_fed-first-yields-mbs As to why would you invest in long-dated versus short? Probably to chase yield. The 30 year yields 30x more than the 1 year. It's also easier to buy on the long end if you believe that the economy will remain slow for another decade or two and therefore the central banks will keep rates low for a very long time. Of course, at the moment, long-dated treasury prices are artificially high because of operation twist.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "518fa26daa042201cbe1c0e3e34addc3", "text": "In a secular bull market, strong investor sentiment drives prices higher, as participants, over time, are net buyers. Secular markets are typically driven by large-scale national and worldwide events... demographic/ population shifts, governmental policies... bear market periods occur within the longer interval, but do not reverse the trend. There are still many reasons to buy the long bond, despite the lack of yield (nearly flat term structure of interest rates). Despite the recent credit ratings agency downgrades of U.S. sovereign risk, the T-bond offers greater relative security than many alternatives. If Germany were NOT part of the EU, its government bonds would be issued by the Bundesbank, denominated in Deutsche Marks. German government bonds would probably be a better choice than the U.S. Treasury's 30-year bond. Long-term maturity U.S. Treasuries are in demand by investment and portfolio managers because:", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "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": "160c44a324bab3abc239fa3ebc2a53bf", "text": "Yes, the Fed has made a point of buying up longer-term bonds to push down rates on that part of the curve. That's not an indication that they're having problems selling Treasuries, in fact far from it. But apparently there's no demand for Treasuries and Bloomberg is just making up lies to help get Obama reelected? &gt;Investors are plowing into Treasuries (USB2YBC) at a record pace as the supply of the world’s safest securities dwindles, ensuring yields will stay low regardless of whether the Federal Reserve undertakes more stimulus to fight unemployment. Buyers bid $3.19 for each dollar of the $538 billion in notes and bonds sold this year, the most since the government began releasing the data in 1992 and on pace to beat the high of $3.04 in 2011. The net amount of Treasuries available will decline by 30 percent once proceeds from maturing securities are reinvested, according to data from CRT Capital Group LLC. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-09/record-treasury-demand-keeps-yields-low-as-supply-shrinks.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "748cfae2bbfeef912d931c272b2f4c68", "text": "But a textbook liquidity trap means prices fluctuate. We've seen nothing but steady increases in every single possible measurable standard. Liquidity traps occur when there is fear of deflation. There is no such fear. Deflation would be a welcome remedy to today's currency crisis. Your paycheck would be able to purchase more and we would see prices fall, making it easier for the average American to afford their food, gas and housing. Plus, lending is down not because banks are hoarding cash. If anything, banks are trying to lend out more than ever. Standards for borrowing have plummited. Anyone willing to sign a contract can get hundreds of thousands of dollars at the drop of a hat. Lending is down because consumer and business demand for more debt is down. I stopped reading Krugman years ago, but if he is seriously trying to sell a liquidity trap right now, he is horribly misleading people and his advocacy of the Fed's printing and lending policies as of late is just flat out dangerous to the global economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6be9ede1c3f854caa8cfd3b0e63ec2b6", "text": "\"A brief review of the financial collapses in the last 30 years will show that the following events take place in a fairly typical cycle: Overuse of that innovation (resulting in inadequate supply to meet demand, in most cases) Inadequate capacity in regulatory oversight for the new volume of demand, resulting in significant unregulated activity, and non-observance of regulations to a greater extent than normal Confusion regarding shifting standards and regulations, leading to inadequate regulatory reviews and/or lenient sanctions for infractions, in turn resulting in a more aggressive industry \"\"Gaming\"\" of investment vehicles, markets and/or buyers to generate additional demand once the market is saturated \"\"Chickens coming home to roost\"\" - A breakdown in financial stability, operational accuracy, or legality of the actions of one or more significant players in the market, leading to one or more investigations A reduction in demand due to the tarnished reputation of the instrument and/or market players, leading to an anticipation of a glut of excess product in the market \"\"Cold feet\"\" - Existing customers seeking to dump assets, and refusing to buy additional product in the pipeline, resulting in a glut of excess product \"\"Wasteland\"\" - Illiquid markets of product at collapsed prices, cratering of associated portfolio values, retirees living below subsistence incomes Such investment bubbles are not limited to the last 30 years, of course; there was a bubble in silver prices (a 700% increase through one year, 1979) when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market, followed by a collapse on Silver Thursday in 1980. The \"\"poster child\"\" of investment bubbles is the Tulip Mania that gripped the Netherlands in the early 1600's, in which a single tulip bulb was reported to command a price 16 times the annual salary of a skilled worker. The same cycle of events took place in each of these bubbles as well. Templeton's caution is intended to alert new (especially younger) players in the market that these patterns are doomed to repeat, and that market cycles cannot be prevented or eradicated; they are an intrinsic effect of the cycles of supply and demand that are not in synch, and in which one or both are being influenced by intermediaries. Such influences have beneficial effects on short-term profits for the players, but adverse effects on the long-term viability of the market's profitability for investors who are ill-equipped to shed the investments before the trouble starts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2732e9c4c38806c0e89bb2edd6272924", "text": "Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37fe9d23a69b6a0ff5dcad43c1dcf84e", "text": "\"&gt;If mounting debt is such an issue, why do all the markets act as though the US is perfectly solvent? They don't. China, Russia and most emerging markets are selling U.S. treasuries faster and faster. They have started doing so a couple years ago and are doing so at a higher pace now. They sold record numbers of U.S. treasuries in June. Many countries are forging trade partnerships with each other to get away from U.S. debt and even the U.N. and IMF are calling for an end to the dollar as the global reserve currency because it no longer deserves that status, largely due to increasing debt. By the way, the Fed is owning a larger and larger portion of U.S. debt these days. &gt;Why is our interest rate so low, and why do investors around the world continue buying Treasury bonds? The federal reserve keeps rates low. Investors speculate about the future of the market all the time, but they are starting to dump them now http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-15/u-s-investment-outflow-reaches-record-as-china-sells-treasuries.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/15/usa-economy-capital-idUSL2N0QL0T520140815 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eaccbe18-aea6-11e3-aaa6-00144feab7de.html &gt;The total net outflow of long-term U.S. securities and short-term funds such as bank transfers was $153.5 billion, after an inflow of $33.1 billion the previous month, the Treasury Department said in a report today. The June figure, and $40.8 billion in net selling of Treasury bonds and notes by private investors in June, **were the largest on record, the Treasury said.** &gt;\"\"This is a disappointment and is a negative for the dollar. Clearly, the United States is having a hard time attracting investments to offset its current account deficit,\"\" said Michael Woolfolk, global market strategist at BNY Mellon in New York. &gt;Central banks sold US Treasury debt at the start of the year, according to the latest official data released on Tuesday, as stress among emerging market countries intensified. Declines in Treasury holdings were seen for Thailand, Turkey and the Philippines, which sold $3.9bn, $3.3bn and $1.5bn respectively during January. Wow look at that. Did you just dismiss all evidence that proves you wrong? I think so!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab529d74108e9de7c8dac0355282dec1", "text": "Long convexity is achieved by owning long dated low delta options. When a significant move occurs in the underlying the volatility curve will move higher. Instead of a linear relationship between your long position and it's return, you receive a multiple of the linear return. For example: Share price $50 Long 1 (equals 100 shares) contract of a 2 year 100 call Assume this is a 5 delta option If the stock price rises to $70 the delta of the option will rise because it is now closer to the strike. Lets assume it is now a 20 delta option. Then Expected return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.20-.05)=$300 However what happens is the entire volatility surface rises and causes the 20 delta option to be 30 delta option. Then The return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.30-.05)=$500 This $200 extra gain is due to convexity and explains why option traders are willing to pay above the theoretical price for these options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5596b89a7503739bfe1ed3ba97b4b993", "text": "Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d97bf4bb1460ad297443f840144b63f", "text": "To my knowledge, the only bond ever issued by a notable state into perpetuity was the Bank of England...and it was a miserable mess for all the obvious reasons. Edit : They were called consuls, and it appears i was wrong about them being catastriphic for the BOE. I'm sorry, i guess i must be cruising the permabear backwoods or something. Here's some interesting links i found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consols http://www.immediateannuities.com/annuitymuseum/annuitycertificatesofthebankofengland/consolidatedannuities/ http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/03/debt-crisis-0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/hundredyearsofsolvency", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c52167af80856de1ae5995c89bb1e1d", "text": "\"This is a speculative question and there's no \"\"correct\"\" answer, but there are definitely some highly likely outcomes. Let's assume that the United States defaults on it's debt. It can be guaranteed that it will lose its AAA rating. Although we don't know what it will drop to, we know it WILL be AA or lower. A triple-A rating implies that the issuer will never default, so it can offer lower rates since there is a guarantee of safety there.People will demand a higher yield for the lower perceived security, so treasury yield will go up. The US dollar, or at least forex rates, will almost certainly fall. Since US treasuries will no longer be a safe haven, the dollar will no longer be the safe currency it once was, and so the dollar will fall. The US stock market (and international markets) will also have a strong fall because so many institutions, financial or otherwise, invest in treasuries so when treasuries tumble and the US loses triple-A, investments will be hurt and the tendency is for investors to overreact so it is almost guaranteed that the market will drop sharply. Financial stocks and companies that invest in treasuries will be hurt the most. A notable exception is nations themselves. For example, China holds over $1 trillion in treasuries and a US default will hurt their value, but the Yuan will also appreciate with respect to the dollar. Thus, other nations will benefit and be hurt from a US default. Now many people expect a double-dip recession - worse than the 08/09 crisis - if the US defaults. I count myself a member of this crowd. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty whether or not there will be another recession or even a depression - we can only say that a recession is a strong possibility. So basically, let's pray that Washington gets its act together and raises the ceiling, or else we're in for bad times. And lastly, a funny quote :) I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. - Warren Buffett\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b3e7446fd01d40d7513b4640655a667", "text": "The way it actually works is that low-but-steady inflation (ie: printing of new dollars without any debt behind them) keeps the debts serviceable. In real life, unfortunately, too little of the money supply is printed rather than lent into existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8290de06be4d6255f61a606db30404dd", "text": "\"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc33b8954e1e7ec0fe149952f8ee1f62", "text": "\"We are exactly where we should be for pricing. We are not over valued. The largest bull market in history is following the longest stagnation in history, we're merely playing catch up. Of course, it was spurred after Trump won because the business sector assumed he would curtail regulation - one thing we're pretty sure he'll accomplish because his business interests are alligned. Recommended reading outlining why we are appropriately valued: Stocks for the Long Run by Jeremy Seigel, Prof of finance at Wharton. I'm all for looking out for people's benefit. As an investment advisor, I have to abide by the fidicuary rule myself. I'm sure there's another side to the argument for them removing the rule. As Robert Shiller, Nobel laureate in economics, put it, \"\"We need the right regulation, not more or less.\"\" Perhaps it's not correct in it's current state. But I'm not a legislative expert, maybe someone can elaborate. We need to be wary about how quick we are to judge on these rulings. Many comments are not experts and our confirmation bias will drive people to misinformation. We judge ourselves on our intentions and others on their actions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b964c197b4e88844b037810b8339df", "text": "There are some important thing you need to understand about bonds, and how they work: * A bond doesn't need an active market - like a stock, for example - to have value. * Nonetheless, there exist active markets for all of these bonds. * The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market. Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop. * The Fed can hold any and all of these bonds to maturity, while receiving contractual payments all the while, and never sell a single bond back to the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa4a29677cbaabb9dbf2395e17812b4a", "text": "I mean, at a personal level, I do this all the time. I will absolutely take advantage of low interest financing offers if I know I can make more money with the outstanding balance than will be drawn in interest. It can also make sense from a risk management perspective: I need liquidity even if I can cover the cost, I anticipate needing a large sum of cash over a short interval during the finance period. If I were to pay all upfront the cumulative expenditures would Darwin me too close to my safety threshold for my comfort level, but by financing I can distribute the risk and keep a higher margin for error over the course of the loan.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
fcf535d8291b5a4dff6958a84162396e
What's the difference between buying bonds and buying bond funds for the long-term?
[ { "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": "ccaa2d226cb5adbec4f42d377dedfa7a", "text": "Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7752f67b871bc3bc345990de3f5221fa", "text": "why would anyone buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? 1) You are making the assumption that interest rates has bottom out hence there is no further possibility of it going down further , i mean who expected Lehman Brother to go bankrupt 2) Long term investors who are able to wait for the bad times of the bond market to end and in the mean time dont mind some dividend payment of 2-3%", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "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": "daccd8ca0d17624588d8df91bea8c332", "text": "One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9925f51cfc0dc10df8dbc5d97d0bb110", "text": "\"The bond funds should tell you their duration. My 401(k) has similar choices, and right now, I'm at the short maturity, i.e. under 1 year. The current return is awful, but better than the drop the longer term funds will experience as rates come back up. Not quite mathematically correct, but close enough, \"\"duration\"\" gives you the time-weighted average maturity in a way that tells you how the value responds to a rate change. If a fund has a 10 year duration, a .1% rate rise will cause the fund value to drop 1.0%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9194142cb6b4c2f6092eb59362dd0019", "text": "\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78bcb03dd265259fb20c14f4e05e8ea1", "text": "IMHO bonds are not a good investment at this present time, nor generally. Appreciate for a moment that the yield of an investment is DIRECTLY related to the face/trading value. If a thing (bond/stock) trades for $100 and yields 3%, it pays $3. In the case of a bond, the bond doesn't pay a % amount, it pays a $ amount. Meaning it pays $3. SO, for the yield to rise, what has to happen to the trading price? It has to decrease. As of 2013/14 bonds are trading at historically LOW yields. The logical implication of this is if a bond pays a fixed $ amount, the trading price of the bond has to have increased. So if you buy bonds now, you will see a decrease in its face value over the long term. You may find the first tool I built at Simple Stock Search useful as you research potential investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b01d95f8b94c0c2cbca6f0916c0342b8", "text": "One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e9716a7dae9d0ef47a03d0a17927d78", "text": "Notes and Bonds sell at par (1.0). When rates go up, their value goes down. When rates go down, their value goes up. As an individual investor, you really don't have any business buying individual bonds unless you are holding them to maturity. Buy a short-duration bond fund or ETF.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5833ec8d238cc8454f640e2e7dadd266", "text": "It has been hinted at in some other answers, but I want to say it explicitly: Volatility is not risk. Volatility is how much an investment goes up and down, risk is the chance that you will lose money. For example, stocks have relatively high volatility, but the risk that you will lose money over a 40 year period is virtually zero (in particular if you invest in index funds). Bonds, on the other hand, have basically no volatility (their cash flow is totally predictable if you trust the future of your government), but there is a significant risk that they will perform worse than stocks over a longer period. So, volatility equals risk only if you are day trading. A 401(k) is literally the opposite of that. For further reading: Never confuse risk and volatility Also, investing is not gambling. Gambling is bad because the odds are stacked against you. You need more than average luck to actually win and the longer you play, the more you will lose. Investing means buying productive capital that will produce further value. The odds are in your favor. Even if you do a moderately bad job at investing, the longer you stay, the more you will win.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2aa481ffa2d33951bfdbbab1ebf2c7cb", "text": "Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity. Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7e82acf77e5091b7bcac9655fad7156", "text": "Often times the commission fees add up a lot. Many times the mundane fluctuations in the stock market on a day to day basis are just white noise, whereas long term investing generally lets you appreciate value based on the market reactions to actual earnings of the company or basket of companies. Day trading often involves leverage as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "289135f42bf8602686098991399ef023", "text": "When it comes down to it, long-term investments pay better than short-term ones. If nothing else, there's less administration and less financial risk for the provider. That's why 2, 3 or 5 year savings accounts pay better than instant access ones. Higher-risk investments pay more interest (or dividends) than low-risk ones. They have to, or nobody would invest in them. So by locking yourself out of any long term and/or risky investments, you're stuck with a choice of low-interest short term ones. There are plenty of investment funds that you can sell at short notice if you want to. But they are volatile, and if you cash out at the wrong time, you can get back less than you invested. The way you lower risk is either to invest in a fund that covers a broad range of investments, or invest in several different funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34480337053b524ffb7b54a83e1dde6b", "text": "\"A fund is a portfolio, in that it is a collection, so the term is interchangeable for the most part. Funds are made up of a combination of equities positions (i.e., stocks, bonds, etc.) plus some amount of un-invested cash. Most of the time, when people are talking about a \"\"fund\"\", they are describing what is really an investment strategy. In other words, an example would be a \"\"Far East Agressive\"\" fund (just a made up name for illustration here), which focuses on investment opportunities in the Far East that have a higher level of risk than most other investments, thus they provide better returns for the investors. The \"\"portfolio\"\" part of that is what the stocks are that the fund has purchased and is holding on behalf of its investors. Other funds focus on municipal bonds or government bonds, and the list goes on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9029326b9e5b19d848a42a55f34439f4", "text": "AAA bonds are safe, as far as the principal goes. If you buy long term bonds today (at very low rates) and the interest rate goes up to 10% in 5 years, the current value of the bonds will decrease. But if you hold the bonds till maturity, you will almost certainly (barring MBS scenarios) get the expected principal and interest on the bonds. If you decide to sell a long-term bond before it matures, it will probably be worth less than you paid for it if interest rates have risen since you bought it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e82749a12bb0dc7acbcdae7eb3ee76e6", "text": "\"For most people \"\"home ownership\"\" is a long term lifestyle strategy (i.e. the intention is to own a home for several decades, regardless of how many times one particular house might be \"\"swapped\"\" for a different one. In an economic environment with steady monetary inflation, taking out a long-term loan backed by a tangible non-depreciating \"\"permanent\"\" asset (e.g. real estate) is in practice a form of investing not borrowing, because over time the monetary value of the asset will increase in line with inflation, but the size of the loan remains constant in money terms. That strategy was always at risk in the short term because of temporary falls in house prices, but long-term inflation running at say 5% per year would cancel out even a 20% fall in house prices in 4 years. Downturns in the economy were often correlated with rises in the inflation rate, which fixed the short-term problem even faster. Car and student loans are an essentially different financial proposition, because you know from the start that the asset will not retain its value (unless you are \"\"investing in a vintage car\"\" rather than \"\"buying a means of personal transportation\"\", a new car will lose most of its monetary value within say 5 years) or there is no tangible asset at all (e.g. taking out a student loan, paying for a vacation trip by credit card, etc). The \"\"scariness\"\" over home loans was the widespread realization that the rules of the game had been changed permanently, by the combination of an economic downturn plus national (or even international) financial policies designed to enforce low inflation rates - with the consequence that \"\"being underwater\"\" had been changed from a short term problem to a long-term one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dda09c7a210d3a3c37bd61c5791be5c3", "text": "First off, I do not recommend buying individual bonds yourself. Instead buy a bond fund (ETF or mutual fund). That way you get some diversification. The risk-reward ratio will be evident in what you find to invest in. Junk bond funds pay the highest rates. Treasury bond funds pay the lowest. So you have to ask yourself how comfortable are you with risk? Buy the funds that pay the highest rate but still let you sleep at night.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
3cac1f9e2395d61e3bb926c4e269a213
Why aren't bond mutual funds seeing huge selloffs now?
[ { "docid": "39d088a91a2089dc380ac875eee0e4b4", "text": "The Fed sets the overnight borrowing costs by setting its overnight target rate. The markets determine the rates at which the treasury can borrow through the issuance of bonds. The Fed's actions will certainly influence the price of very short term bonds, but the Fed's influence on anything other than very short term bonds in the current environment is very muted. Currently, the most influential factor keeping bond prices high and yields low is the high demand for US treasuries coming from overseas governments and institutions. This is being caused by two factors : sluggish growth in overseas economies and the ongoing strength of the US dollar. With many European government bonds offering negative redemption yields, income investors see US yields as relatively attractive. Those non-US economies which do not have negative bond yields either have near zero yields or large currency risks or both. Political issues such as the survival of the Euro also weigh heavily on market perceptions of the current attractiveness of the US dollar. Italian banks may be about to deliver a shock to the Eurozone, and the Spanish and French banks may not be far behind. Another factor is the continued threat of deflation. Growth is slowing around the world which negatively effects demand. Commodity prices remain depressed. Low growth and recession outside of the US translate into a prolonged period of near zero interest rates elsewhere together with renewed QE programmes in Europe, Japan, and possibly elsewhere. This makes the US look relatively attractive and so there is huge demand for US dollars and bonds. Any significant move in US interest rates risks driving to dollar ever higher which would be very negative for the future earning of US companies which rely on exports and foreign income. All of this makes the market believe that the Fed's hands are tied and low bond yields are here for the foreseeable future. Of course, even in the US growth is relatively slow and vulnerable to a loss of steam following a move in interest rates.", "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": "caaa941e38ec9ee827a9992f82a54e8c", "text": "\"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have \"\"distributions\"\" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "631c6e3f6efdc57d684f2b42448b65a5", "text": "Yes those are really yields. A large portion of the world has negative yielding bonds in fact. This process has been in motion for the past 10 years for very specific reasons. So congratulations on discovering the bond market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dbc624215009d4ce02125d8bbff2fad", "text": "\"Bonds are priced \"\"very high\"\" because their price is compared to their yields. With the current interest rates, which are very low, the bond yields will be low. However, bond issuers still need the money, so there still will be high par value, and investors will not sell bonds at a loss unless there's a better investment (=bonds with better yields). Once the rates start going up, you'll see bonds with current rates dropping in value significantly. Once alternatives appear, people holding them will start dumping them to move the money somewhere more profitable. Similarly the stocks - since there's no other investment alternatives (yields on the bonds are low, interests are low), people invest more in the stocks. Once the rates go up, the investors will start rebalancing portfolios and cashing out.\"", "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": "b01d95f8b94c0c2cbca6f0916c0342b8", "text": "One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.", "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": "379fd084a7b1339e70292490902c9a36", "text": "I don't see a contrast. It's really hard to predict which mutual funds will do well in the future. Predicting that ones which have done well recently will continue to do well works slightly better than chance. The WSJ article and Morningstar agree on all the objective facts, they just spin them differently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6039901bd125dde0231f61f69b5073ed", "text": "\"Were you thinking of an annuity? They guarantee regular payments, usually after retirement. In any case, every investment has counterparty risk. Bonds guarantee payout, but the issuer could always default. This is why Treasury bonds have the lowest yields, the Treasury is the world's most trusted borrower. It's also why \"\"junk\"\" bonds have higher yields than investment grade and partially why longer duration bonds have higher yields. As mentioned, there's bank accounts, which gain interest and are insured by FDIC up to $250,000. If the bank folds, they'll be acquired by another and your account balance will simply transfer. Similar to bank accounts are money market funds. These are funds that purchase very short term \"\"paper\"\" (basically <90 day bonds). They maintain a share price of $1 and pay interest in the form of additional shares. These have the risk of \"\"breaking the buck\"\" where they need to sell assets at a loss to meet investor withdrawal demands and NAV drops below $1.00. Fortunately, that's a super rare occurance, but still definitely possible. Finally, there's one guy I've seen on TV pitching a no risk high yield investment. I can't remember the firm, but I am waiting to see them shut down for running a ponzi scheme.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96a2942dfa624446406a128889324e34", "text": "There's a premium or discount for various stocks subject to influence by the alternatives available to investors, meaning investments are susceptible to the principle of supply and demand. This is easily seen when industries or business models get hot, and everybody wants a tech company, a social media company, or a solar company in his portfolio. You'll see bubbles like the dotcom bubble, the RE bubble, etc., as people start to think that the industry and not its performance are all that matters. The stock price of a desired industry or company is inflated beyond what might otherwise be expected, to accommodate the premium that the investment can demand. So if bonds become uniformly less attractive in terms of returns, and certain institutional investors are largely obliged to continue purchasing them anyway, then flexible investors will need to look elsewhere. As more people want to buy stocks, the price rises. Supply and demand is sometimes so elementary it feels nearly counter-intuitive, but it applies here as elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7096dc31ef585f136d18d2617946e5b", "text": "There's no doubt that equities, as well as junk bonds (which have, in Europe, according to BAML, reached the same average return as 10-year-US treasuries) are currently overvalued, which is why I, and I suggest this to any active investor, have taken out all my money from tradable equities and debt and invested it into undervalued dank memes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0431c925b74c048b4e4f5e9fa8065e11", "text": "FI funds don't always drop in rising rate environments, and can outperform thanks to simple bond math and the way the indexes are built. It's one of the places where it's very easy to argue in favour of some form of active management.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fd0e843fca80da2dcfa715ff3d71960", "text": "The US Treasury is not directly/transactionally involved, but can affect the junk bond market by issuing new bonds when rates rise. Since US bonds are considered completely safe, changes in yield will affect low quality debt. For example, if rates rose to levels like 1980, a 12% treasury bond would drive the prices of junk bonds issued today dramatically lower. Another price factor is likelihood of default. Companies with junk credit ratings have lousy balance sheets, so negative economic conditions or tight short term debt markets can result in default for many of these companies. Whether bonds in a fund are new issues or purchased on the secondary market isn't something that is very relevant to the individual investor. The current interest rate environment is factored into the market already via prices of bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1929e88f0214dc218452d12e55a4339", "text": "\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1542bcc538c404dc66e2c16e89a01340", "text": "Lowered rates = boom for equities, currently held bonds, and assets. Cheaper money means a (disproportionately) good time had by all. This all comes with malinvestment, potential for moral hazard, and savers losing in a big way. Why save for retirement when your risk free return on US Treasuries can barely keep up with inflation? As an aside, it is not really a risk free rate anymore, with $20 trillion in debt and no real hope of paying it off. This is why we see the rate increases and movement towards asset sales by the Fed to get the poop off their books. They are worried about all of the above and need more arrows in their quiver when the next recession hits. They won't have enough, however. They are trying to right a ship that is fully overturned. This is now the longest period of growth (however tepid) since the tech bubble of the 1990's. Are the fundamentals really better than then?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b964c197b4e88844b037810b8339df", "text": "There are some important thing you need to understand about bonds, and how they work: * A bond doesn't need an active market - like a stock, for example - to have value. * Nonetheless, there exist active markets for all of these bonds. * The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market. Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop. * The Fed can hold any and all of these bonds to maturity, while receiving contractual payments all the while, and never sell a single bond back to the market.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
4d08d32d21efa2b77cbc690ea1414a65
What is the “Bernanke Twist” and “Operation Twist”? What exactly does it do?
[ { "docid": "4eef03adb23ac2f2b8b9f6d3a908fd72", "text": "\"So \"\"Operation Twist\"\" is actually a pretty simple concept. Here's the break down: The Fed sells short-term treasury bonds that it already holds on its books. Short-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in less than three years. Then: Uses that money to buy long term treasury bonds. Long-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in six to 30 years The reason: The fed buys these longer-term treasuries to lower longer-term interest rates and encourage more borrowing and spending. Diving deeper into how it works: So the Fed can easily determine short-term rates by using the Federal funds rate this rate has a direct effect on the following: However this does not play a direct role in influencing the rate of long-term loans (what you might pay on a 30-year fixed mortgage). Instead, long-term rates are determined by investors who buy and sell bonds in the bond market, which changes daily. These bond yields fluctuate depending on the health of the economy and inflation. However, the Fed funds rate does play an indirect role in these rates. So now that we know a little more about what effects what rate, why does lower long-term rates in treasuries influence my 30yr fixed mortgage? Well when you are looking for a loan you are entering a market and competing against other people, by people I mean anyone looking for money (e.g: my grandmother, companies, or the US government). The bank that lends you money has to decide weather the deal you are offering them is better then another deal on the market. If the risk of lending to one person is the same as the risk of lending to another, the bank will make whichever loan yields the higher interest rate. The U.S. government is considered a very safe borrower, so much so that government bonds are considered almost “risk free”, but because of the lower risk the rate of return is lower. So now the bank has to factor in this risk and make its decision weather to lend you money, or the government. So, if the government were to go to the market and buy its own long-term bonds it is adding demand in the market causing the price of the bond to rise in effect lowering the interest rate (when price goes up, yield goes down). So when you go back and ask for a loan it has to re-evaluate and decide \"\"Is it worth giving this money to Joe McFreeBeer instead and collecting a higher yield?\"\" (After all, Joe McFreeBeer is a nice guy). Here's an example: Lets say the US has a rating of 10 out of 10 and its bonds pay a 2% yield. Now lets say for each lower mark in rating the bank will lend at a minimum of 1% higher and your rating is 8 of 10. So if you go to market, the lowest rate you can get will be 4%. Now lets say price rises on the US treasury and causes the rate to go down by 1%. In this scenario you will now be able to get a loan for 3% and someone with a rating of 7 of 10 would be able to get that 4% loan. Here's some more info and explinations: Why is the Government Buying Long-Term Bonds? What Is 'Operation Twist'? A Q&A on US Fed Program Federal Reserve for Beginners Federal Open Market Committee\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ab90eea050860a8a0fd05acc26713a6", "text": "\"To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is. You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down. Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to \"\"twist\"\" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "1de24d75080643ec1433ec639cffd061", "text": "The severity of wealth inequality- more so than its existence- is what I'm getting at when I talk about the Fed. The cantillon effect is a theory that essentially states that the first recipients of stimulus are far better off than those 2 or 3 degrees of separation later. So if you look at Fed policies, where monetary stimulus is directed only towards the financial system and credit markets, certain parties will benefit disproportionately first before others later. In this case, that would be those employed by the industry (bankers, investors, etc), institutions in that industry (banks, hedge funds, pension/mutual funds), and owners of securities (the wealthy). Spillover effects impact the stock market, real estate, art, etc. and they are not a result of fundamentals, but rather of mis-allocated capital. What I'm getting at is we don't need central planners (i.e. the Fed) to make decisions regarding the market for money - interest rates - or pursue dubious financial experiments at best to somehow fix problems that they themselves caused in the past (through extended low interest rate environments). Central banking could take a very serious hit if cryptocurrencies become mainstream- which I do not expect for a long time- but it's the best emergent challenger to the existing paradigm.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12cec45d7a98b04b18ee1ff0e22ffdc2", "text": "Yeah it's called the Fed buying shit mortgages that the banks invented to make money, then got bailed out on 100 cents on the dollar for, and with an underhanded deal that the banks will then buy Treasury bills with the magically prestidigitated money the Fed creates out of nothing that the banks receive in order to prop up federal debt prices, and thus keep interest rates down, so the dollar can limp along a little while longer until the bottom drops out because they are out of ways to keep the money cheap because at some point government debt will become massively discounted no matter what they do. Only, how does this bizarre circlejerk process end? It ends with consumption ramped up consuming things for a large war, is how it ends. Edit: I'm wasted. Fuck you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ffbb4a564a62c8a471a983d723cac5d", "text": "\"Had they made a billion dollars it still wouldn't be arbitrage. The definition of arbitrage is \"\"the simultaneous purchase and sale of similar commodities in different markets to take advantage of price discrepancy\"\". What they did was take advantage of a loophole where they took free money to buy more free money. I believe the American government calls that Quantitative Easing. Bazinga.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "998811179d4010020bb3b3408dd346b8", "text": "\"left out of the pictures is the degree to which the ECB is buying their own bonds. At least with the FedResInk, we know what sort of \"\"open market\"\" action is being taken to keep interest rates held as close to zero as possible. I coke dealer can make sure his \"\"sales\"\" are through the roof by using his own product, but eventually he has to buy more supply. I think people are confused about central banks being that coke dealer or being his supplier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05e87d41ee53fac21f7ce4f9b2fcdd3c", "text": "As far as i understand the big companies on the stock markets have automated processes that sit VERY close to the stock feeds and continually processes these with the intention of identifying an opportunity to take multiple small lots and buy/sell them as a big lot or vice/versa and do this before a buy or sell completes, thus enabling them to intercept the trade and make a small profit on the delta. With enough of these small gains on enough shares they make big profits and with near zero chance of losing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb70a93417809e51fc892e9093c447aa", "text": "Let me explain this for you: - Massive decrease in sales from 2009-2010= bad government (Obama/Bernanke). - Even bigger increase in sales from 2010-2013= substantive economic growth due to a well-run company. - Later downturn in 2013-2014= bad government (Obama/Bernanke) Basically, when a company is increasing overall revenue and profits, that's because economics and free-markets. When a company is losing sales and revenues, that's because Obama. If their stock-price goes up when it shouldn't, that's also because Obama. Stock prices that are high right now are only high because Obama/Bernanke, except when they are high because of something else. When stock prices go down, it will also be because of Obama/Bernanke. Hopefully that clarifies things for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e488ba73bb1bea39e9b6737e5018779", "text": "Sorry, but I am absolutely correct. Fractional reserve lending (banking) is simply that when someone deposits money into a bank, the bank is allowed to loan that money out, so long as they keep a reserve. If the reserve rate is 10% (it's much lower in reality), and someone deposits $100 into the bank, the bank can then loan out $90. That is fractional reserve lending at its most basics. Now fractional reserve lending does have a multiplier effect. And this effect is exactly how I described it. Let's go back to the example. Person A deposits the $100, the bank then loans $90 to person B, person B spends it with person C, person C takes the money and deposits back to the bank. Now the bank has the $100 cash back, $90 in loans and the $190 in deposits, so they need to hold onto $19 as a reserve and can loan out $81. Assuming the money cycles with 100% efficiency, the bank can continue loaning out the same money until they are left with $1000 in deposits, $900 in loans, and the original $100 is the reserve. This is the multiplier effect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "045a95698737bb16498d42194ede6411", "text": "I am just a C student with no hope for grad school, so you are going to have to walk me through this... The ECB (until recently), Japan, and the Swiss have been running QE programs equal to that of the Fed's in 2009 for the last couple of years. That's an extraordinary amount of money being created... what's more, is that the Swiss are even buying shitloads of American equities with it. Perhaps my understanding of M2 is flawed, but how would the Swiss national bank buying $63B in equities change M2? It's not like the fed is printing the money specifically for the transaction. The amount of QE being pumped into a healthy economy over the last couple years should be concerning, if only because it's unprecedented, especially since some of it is being directly invested into equities. I don't think there is a viable argument that can truthfully say that it isn't a pretty large variable in the market today.... but I could be wrong. Also, I've read enough, and heard enough, on how the inflation rate is measured to cultivate a healthy skepticism for the entire metric. The way they choose baskets, while obviously the best possible, is not something that lends itself to precision. Please be kind to my grammar.", "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": "3abfe6c068b124327ded89f42cbe279f", "text": "\"I think it's an argument for Keynesian economic policy, basically an abridged version of this paragraph from the Wikipedia article: Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle. \"\"private sector decisions\"\" are bottom-up: millions of businesses and individuals make economic decisions and \"\"the economy\"\" is the sum of what they do. \"\"monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government\"\" are top-down: central institutions implement measures that are intended to have a positive effect (such as reducing unemployment) on millions of individuals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "345ee357ebff024c4d84f5403004d19b", "text": "\"I'm still very new to the world of finance. I'm learning about all of the derivatives and how money is made off of them, but it's crazy to me that everyone involved neglected the risk aspect of this. In hindsight, it's so easy to explain what was happening. I guess when everyone is making money hand over fist, it's easy to look the other way. Even the federal gov't played a tremendous role in the crash. Looking at that FRED graph is probably the easiest way to explain the ramifications of the crash. I'm reading [All the Devils Are Here](https://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/159184438X) right now that was recommended to me by my GF's father. It gives context to the crash in a digestible way, but isn't too dumbed down. I highly recommend it. The man played for the USA on the \"\"Miracle\"\" team and then went on to become a successful bonds trader. I've learned more from my conversations with him than I think I'll ever learn in school. Dude is brilliant and can go for hours on anything finance related.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e8427f6c06c93827246c711c98b9cb6", "text": "\"I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option. I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons. **Example:** [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called \"\"The Economist\"\" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos) [Actual \"\"The Economist\"\" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos) (edit: formatting)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09e0dc02beb3ab2a18b54de2e2064cd6", "text": "A Ponzi scheme takes investor money and lies about where it is invested. New investor money is then used to pay dividends to current investors to attract more investors. However there is a fundamental lie as to where the investment is and how much money is under control. The Fed satisfies none of these requirements. You're pretty confused on the terms. See my post above on how the Fed works.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2c240138d6421f5623cf2a6162c0879", "text": "This might be a question better suited for r/askeconomics or just r/economics. Ben Bernanke is an excellent source on the Great Depression, however, and he's very good if you want to understand these crises from an economic point of view.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d6f220dd1677d35b3bed386d664808f", "text": "Investing in mutual funds, ETF, etc. won't build a large pool of money. Be an active investor if your nature aligns. For e.g. Invest in buying out a commercial space (on bank finance) like a office space and then rent it out. That would give you better return than a savings account. In few years time, you may be able to pay back your financing and then the total return is your net return. Look for options like this for a multiple growth in your worth.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
2448ba96e26b5ae03f48d70bd23e55ba
Should I buy a house or am I making silly assumptions that I can afford it?
[ { "docid": "1eb13c9666e53791ca4cf6f61715f852", "text": "\"The (interest bearing) mortgage of £300,000 would be SIX times your salary. That's a ratio that was found in Japan, and (I believe) was a main reason for their depressed economy of the past two decades. Even with an interest free loan of nearly £150,000, it would be a huge gamble for someone of your income. Essentially, you are gambling that 1) your income will \"\"grow\"\" into your mortgage, (and that's counting income from renting part of the property) or 2) the house will rise in value, thereby bailing you out. That was a gamble that many Americans took, and lost, in the past ten years. If you do this, you may be one of the \"\"lucky\"\" ones, you may not, but you are really taking your future in your hands. The American rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5-3 times income, that is maybe up to £150,000. Perhaps £200,000 if £50,000 or so of that is interest free. But not to the numbers you're talking about.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2347a4ed4cd25bf7adcbdf7126f9d7", "text": "The rules of thumb are there for a reason. In this case, they reflect good banking and common sense by the buyer. When we bought our house 15 years ago it cost 2.5 times our salary and we put 20% down, putting the mortgage at exactly 2X our income. My wife thought we were stretching ourselves, getting too big a house compared to our income. You are proposing buying a house valued at 7X your income. Granted, rates have dropped in these 15 years, so pushing 3X may be okay, the 26% rule still needs to be followed. You are proposing to put nearly 75% of your income to the mortgage? Right? The regular payment plus the 25K/yr saved to pay that interest free loan? Wow. You are over reaching by double, unless the rental market is so tight that you can actually rent two rooms out to cover over half the mortgage. Consider talking to a friendly local banker, he (or she) will likely give you the same advice we are. These ratios don't change too much by country, interest rate and mortgages aren't that different. I wish you well, welcome to SE.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ade21fd3e683ecce1e0dc99e3e3f3fa", "text": "\"Having convinced myself that there is no point of paying someone's else mortgage Somewhat rhetorical this many years later, but I expect some other kid forcefed the obsession with propping up the housing market might be repeating the nonsense about \"\"paying someone else's mortgage\"\" and read this. Will you be buying your own farm to grow your own food, or are you happy with people using the money you spend on food for a mortgage? How about clothes? Will you be weaving your own clothes because you don't want money you spend on clothes to pay someone else's mortgage? What's special about the money you pay for rent that you get annoyed at how someone else spends it? Don't get a mortgage just because you don't like the idea of how other people might spend the money that's no longer yours after you pay them with it. As an aside, at your age with your income and no debt, you could be sensibly investing a lot of money. If you did that for five years, you'd be in a much better position that you would be tying yourself to whatever current scheme the UK is using to desperately prop up house prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c20caa866e1e2694a2da247c5e9f80a9", "text": "A common rule of thumb is the 28/36 ratio. It's described here. In your case, with a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that means that you should spend no more than 28% of it, or £1,167 per month on housing. You may be able to swing a bit more because you have no debts and a modest amount in your savings. The 36% part comes in as the amount you can spend servicing all your debt, including mortgage. In your case, based on a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that'd be £1,500 per month. Again, that is to cover your housing costs and any additional debt you are servicing. So, you need to figure out how much you could bring in through rent to make up the rest. As at least one other person has commented, the rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5 - 3 times your income. I personally think you are not a good candidate for a mortgage of the size you are discussing. That said, I no longer live in England. If you could feel fairly secure getting someone to pay you enough in rent to bring down your total mortgage and loan repayment amounts to £1,500 or so a month, you may want to consider it. Remember, though, that it may not always be easy to find renters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "933d4d77ab71aaf0bdb5e1d198ab6f1b", "text": "When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis. Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries. Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting. But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices. I think this could be down. If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble. Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit. Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal.", "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": "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": "33d099c8da7f15157ff66e6ab94e8a96", "text": "My in-laws are pressuring me to buy a home. I don't really have much financial experience. In fact, I'm a nightmare with finances. I almost have my student loans payed off from school. My in-laws and husband are great with finances and with real-estate. My husband has a good job and $200k in savings. I have a good job too, and still have some debt from school. (approx $60k left of 180k). They say the house will be available in Jan or February for purchase, and that we should really try to buy it (prob $2-3 mil). My guess is they want to make it available to us off the market (which is a huge benefit in this area, there are really no houses available lately) . The problem is: I am uncomfortable because I don't have all of my loans payed off, I could divert money away from paying off the loans in order to save for a larger downpayment. I just got a bonus of $35k (after taxes) I don't think I'll have all of my loans payed off by January. Should I save my money for the downpayment or focus on my loans, should I go for the house? I don't know how to weigh these options against each other with such little experience.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c660aa77d34da2bf069924c305d831ea", "text": "\"I am going to respond to a very thin sliver of what's going on. Skip ahead 4 years. When buying that house, is it better to have $48K in the bank but a $48K student loan, or to have neither? That $48K may very well be what it would take to put you over the 20% down payment threshhold thus avoiding PMI. Banks let you have a certain amount of non-mortgage debt before impacting your ability to borrow. It's the difference between the 28% for the mortgage, insurance and property tax, and the total 38% debt service. What I offer above is a bit counter-intuitive, and I only mention it as you said the house is a priority. I'm answering as if you asked \"\"how do I maximize my purchasing power if I wish to buy a house in the next few years?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4577731b949a0dece0a8ed46a0bc96d8", "text": "\"I recently moved out from my parents place, after having built up sufficient funds, and gone through these questions myself. I live near Louisville, KY which has a significant effect on my income, cost of living, and cost of housing. Factor that into your decisions. To answer your questions in order: When do I know that I'm financially stable to move out? When you have enough money set aside for all projected expenses for 3-6 months and an emergency fund of 4-10K, depending on how large a safety net you want or need. Note that part of the reason for the emergency fund is as a buffer for the things you won't realize you need until you move out, such as pots or chairs. It also covers things being more expensive than anticipated. Should I wait until both my emergency fund is at least 6 months of pay and my loans in my parents' names is paid off (to free up money)? 6 months of pay is not a good measuring stick. Use months of expenses instead. In general, student loans are a small enough cost per month that you just need to factor them into your costs. When should I factor in the newer car investment? How much should I have set aside for the car? Do the car while you are living at home. This allows you to put more than the minimum payment down each month, and you can get ahead. That looks good on your credit, and allows refinancing later for a lower minimum payment when you move out. Finally, it gives you a \"\"sense\"\" of the monthly cost while you still have leeway to adjust things. Depending on new/used status of the car, set aside around 3-5K for a down payment. That gives you a decent rate, without too much haggling trouble. Should I get an apartment for a couple years before looking for my own house? Not unless you want the flexibility of an apartment. In general, living at home is cheaper. If you intend to eventually buy property in the same area, an apartment is throwing money away. If you want to move every few years, an apartment can, depending on the lease, give you that. How much should I set aside for either investment (apartment vs house)? 10-20K for a down payment, if you live around Louisville, KY. Be very choosy about the price of your house and this gives you the best of everything. The biggest mistake you can make is trying to get into a place too \"\"early\"\". Banks pay attention to the down payment for a good reason. It indicates commitment, care, and an ability to go the distance. In general, a mortgage is 30 years. You won't pay it off for a long time, so plan for that. Is there anything else I should be doing/taking advantage of with my money during this \"\"living at home\"\" period before I finally leave the nest? If there is something you want, now's the time to get it. You can make snap purchases on furniture/motorcycles/games and not hurt yourself. Take vacations, since there is room in the budget. If you've thought about moving to a different state for work, travel there for a weekend/week and see if you even like the place. Look for deals on things you'll need when you move out. Utensils, towels, brooms, furniture, and so forth can be bought cheaply, and you can get quality, but it takes time to find these deals. Pick up activities with monthly expenses. Boxing, dancing, gym memberships, hackerspaces and so forth become much more difficult to fit into the budget later. They also give you a better credit rating for a recurring expense, and allow you to get a \"\"feel\"\" for how things like a monthly utility bill will work. Finally, get involved in various investments. A 401k is only the start, so look at penny stocks, indexed funds, ETFs or other things to diversify with. Check out local businesses, or start something on the side. Experiment, and have fun.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60d54be3b63010282dc4e0772eaea452", "text": "I would ignore the bank completely when they use gross income. Decide, based upon your current living situation, what your MAX limit on a monthly payment is. Then from that determine the size and cost of the house you can buy. My husband and I decided on a $2000 monthly payment max, but also agreed $1500 was more reasonable. When using those numbers in the calculators it is way less than when using gross income. When we used our gross pay the calculators all said we could afford double what we were looking for. Since they don't know what our take home pay is (after all the deductions including 401k, healthcare, etc), the estimates on gross income are way higher than what we can comfortably afford. Set a budget based on your current living situation and what you want your future to look like. Do you want to scrimp and coupon clip or would you rather live comfortably in a smaller home? Do the online calculators based on take home pay and on gross pay to get a sense of the range you could be looking at.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "749960a13c58456820dd69d8e93bd7c4", "text": "\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\"", "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": "a5711d12602cfcbaf9d52c641416cb4d", "text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "cba49732a004bf70fd9e04cad1a15c98", "text": "You'll have much more flexibility and peace of mind if your expenses are based on your current income and that income increases in the future. It's great that you aren't comfortable with spending more, you don't want to end up in the position you just removed yourself from. That said, you don't just ignore planned income altogether. Personally, my wife and I feel best knowing that I have the essentials covered with my income, and that her income primarily helps us put away more for retirement, home renovations, and vacations, because she likely won't work for a long while if we have kids. How you plan depends on your wife's career aspirations and prospects, if your wife has high income potential and you don't plan to buy until after she resumes work, then it may suit you to plan on her income too. You'll have to balance the certainty and amount of her income with your goals. If you're trying to make up ground on savings/retirement, then a less expensive house seems wise anyway. It's a much easier problem to decide what to do with excess funds than feeling trapped/stressed by a high mortgage payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33b302d80d4aec200d913ed4957c9d97", "text": "If your debt will all be less than 25% gross (yes, I see you said take home) you are in great shape. I'd get the car and not worry. The well written mortgage is 20% down, with a housing payment (which of course includes prop tax and insurance, as noted by mhoran, below) under 28% and total debt under 36%. You are well within the limits, not even close. That's great.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5de97a1bc0bbdec7f2e311fbfba9d0bd", "text": "\"Be careful that pride is not getting in the way of making a good decision. As it stands now what difference does it make to have 200K worth of debt and a 200K house or 225K of debt and a 250K house? Sure you would have a 25K higher net worth, but is that really important? Some may even argue that such an increase is not real as equity in primary residence might not be a good indication of wealth. While there is nothing wrong with sitting down with a banker, most are likely to see your scheme as dubious. Home improvements rarely have a 100% ROI and almost never have a 200% ROI, I'd say you'd be pretty lucky to get a 65% ROI. That is not to say they will deny you. The banks are in the business of lending money, and have the goal of taking as much of your hard earned paycheck as possible. They are always looking to \"\"sheer the sheep\"\". Why not take a more systematic approach to improving your home? Save up and pay cash as these don't seem to cause significant discomfort. With that size budget and some elbow grease you can probably get these all done in three years. So in three years you'll have about 192K in debt and a home worth 250K or more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "5d14017cf9bb7bba44f247ba96217ce9", "text": "The technical term of a recession is 2 successive quarters of negative GDP growth. As is the natural cycle, the curve will invert at some point in the future; maybe it's tomorrow or 5 years from now - but nobody knows for certain. One also shouldn't take any single indicator as the end all be all of indicators. For example, there are other spreads that indicate the health of credit in the global economy such as the TED spread and the LIBOR-OIS spread. If you take a peek at the TED spread (http://www.macrotrends.net/1447/ted-spread-historical-chart), it tells a much different story. The TED spread measures the health of the global banking system by tracking the rate at which banks lend to each other. A lower TED rate equals more trust and perceived creditworthiness of the borrower, which would be another bank. Lastly, you really can't rely on a single article or single indicator to come to the conclusion that the sky is falling. Even if we are on the precipice of a recession here in the US, nobody can tell predetermine the impact and depth of the recession. In my opinion, we are nearing the top of the credit cycle and should be expecting a bit of a cooling off in the near term 1-3 years. Outside of that, your guess is as good as mine.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
c9e0adf713c4d78b44c8e7d3a67a220f
What is a subsidy?
[ { "docid": "b6156d8d24394a79802c07edf1d6a1e2", "text": "Subsidy usually means gratuitous financial support. For example, if for whatever reason you live much below the living average paying utility services in full might be too expensive - you'll be out of money before you even think of buying food and basic clothes. Yet it's clear that once can't live in a city without utility services. So the government might have a program for subsidizing utility services for people with very low income - a person brings in proof of low income and once it is low enough government will step in and pay that person utility services in full or in part depending on actual income he proves. The same can be organized for anything government or some organization wishes to support for whatever reason. The key idea is someone gives you free money for spending on some specific purpose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "705b8bb17f02ce2119fe61d0704c5bf9", "text": "subsidy - financial support. For example subsidized housing - when the government pays a part of your rent (usually for low income families). or subsidized student loan - when somebody else is paying interest on the money you borrowed while you are in school.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e67096d3a6a605ce4f1b98783b15ba06", "text": "It means a government giving out money to encourage a particular product (or service) to be bought or sold. Some people will use the word more loosely to refer to any financial incentive, even if it's not coming from the government. Wikipedia has a list of examples that may be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy A commonly-mentioned one is farm subsidies, where farmers are paid to produce certain crops.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a386d52e8820cd77a4acb592f43dbff4", "text": "A subsidy is a payment made by a group (usually the state) to individuals or corporations in order to shift the balance if the rational economic decision for the individual would be detrimental to the group as a whole otherwise. For example, if there are different quality kinds of crops that can be planted, for example a GM maize that brings in high yields but can only be processed to High Fructose Corn Syrup or a naturally bred corn that brings lower yields but tastes well enough for direct consumption, then if demand for both exceeds supply, the economic choice for the individual farmer is to plant the former. If the claims that HFCS contribute to obesity are founded, then it is in the public interest to produce less of it, and more alternative foods. Given that a market rather than a planned economy is desired, this cannot be achieved by decree, but rather money is used as an incentive. In the long term, this investment may very well pay off through reduced health care costs, so it is a rational economic decision from the state's point of view. In a world where all actors make decisions that are fully in their self interest, in principle subsidies would not be needed as consumers would demand healthy rather than cheap foods, and market mechanisms would provide these.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "fb053d3e39dfbf1774ccd53577678890", "text": "That's a completely false statement. You really should read something for yourself instead of parroting misinformation. Per the US Energy Information Administration's 2015 report, more than 50% of all subsidy money ($15 billion of just less than $30 billion) is for renewables while producing less than 15% of energy with solar accounting for a whopping 0.005% (rounded up). https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf By contrast, liquid petroleum and coal received only ~$3.4 billion in subsidies produced 66% (rounded down) of energy. The moral of the story is: just because you want something to be true really badly doesn't mean it is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b347516b80a7e2ce42a82256cc525709", "text": "A Loan is an loan that gives some kind of benefit as an assurance to a loaning organization. So when you put in an application for a credit, you likewise advocate that in case that you can not pay, you've some form of benefit that will cover the default sum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfcb63dcc9f97588f55a8ede45e22a8a", "text": "Well you would have to take into account 2 things. 1 the taxes and regulations that fossil fuel industries face relative to renewables. 2. subsidies as a percent of fossil fuel industry compared to subsidies as a percent of green energy companies. My hunch is that both of these points show that overall, the fossil fuel industry isn't benefiting from the government and renewable companies are benefiting", "title": "" }, { "docid": "627d7f807f3b08ed69498324074acf85", "text": "&gt; It's still free money from US to build a system for THEM so they can sell the power back to us at a profit. Sure, because otherwise they can't make a profit and thus wouldn't build the system. That's the point in subsidises.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64c3f2132171b5273ef7d6135437d46b", "text": "Investment in public infrastructure is different than subsidy to private companies. Comparison to the interstate system here is irrelevant. The state of Wisconsin is giving a company $230k per worker per year in tax breaks for jobs that will pay the workers $53k per year. There is no tax rate that can earn that investment back for the state. In fact, that state income tax rate on these salaries is 6.27%. Even considering all of the additional jobs that will be created for construction and as an effect of having a large employer in the area, this investment will never pay for itself in terms of taxes generated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ab33ce88815758683978479ee0009f", "text": "\"Companies often provide cafeteria, or catering services, to employees tax-free at subsidized rates. I'll use \"\"cafeteria\"\" as an illustration. The IRS says that in order to avoid lunch being taxed as income, the employees must pay the \"\"direct costs\"\" of the lunch, food and labor. In addition to those costs, cafeterias add two more items to come up with the total tab; \"\"overhead,\"\" (the cost of renting the space), and of course, profit. The company can waive the last two, and charge employees only materials and labor. That's why subsidized cafeteria food can cost as little as half of what it would cost elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f8deb6271cb0f019346d6c648e11cd1", "text": "I think increasing funding to public colleges are an -okay- thing to do. Certainly it is better than the current system which guarantees student loans to benefit the bankers. So, we're talking about two different kinds of subsidies: one directly for schools and one for bankers. While ideally, I'd like to see no government involvement whatsoever, I can compromise as long as bankers are bearing the full risk of their student loans. The student loan system is what is bubbling up tuition prices, very similar to what happened in housing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc7a6f35a0191b74ae0b4020a2121cee", "text": "What subsidies are you talking about? From wikipedia: &gt;&gt;'The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters' More like small businesses are grateful there is a service they don't have to pay excessive administrative taxes to use and are sad the greed in the US is going to wreck yet another piece. The value of privatization is such a horrible scam.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50bb518a10ebf19ab021cf0290cfa804", "text": "&gt;&gt;The US remains wedded to its allegedly free market leanings despite revelations that JP Morgan, among others, receives $14 BILLION a year in government subsidies. I don't think you'd get much more argument from American taxpayers (big or small) that subsidies if/when they are justified should come with requirements to make sure the public interest is truly being served. What is less clear is that holding stock in businesses that the government has decided to subsidize means the government should control the pay of the parent company's execs. Disclaimer: I identify conservative with libertarian leanings and do not (to the best of my knowledge) own stock in any bank or bank-like entity", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d9e049493c96bcb0872c1bd9d8fdef8", "text": "\"Similar, but actually quite different. A negative income tax on the first $20,000/year has a couple of problems this scheme doesn't: 1) Administration costs and legal complexity. Are we \"\"prebating\"\" or \"\"rebating\"\" the stipend? How is someone supposed to get along if they lose their job unexpectedly in a rebate-based system, can they get their income-tax withholdings back up to $20,000/year? How does the government register changes in income to know when to write someone a check? 2) With a negative tax up to a certain *fixed* level, there's effectively a changing level of subsidy depending how much of the per-capita income is the break-even tax level. If the per-capita income is $45,000/year (our current GDP per capita), then the subsidy level is almost 50%, and if it goes up to $60,000/year (our current mean household income), the subsidy level is then 33%. The system I described and steepk (IIRC) invented fixes the subsidy percentage in relation to the mean reported income (effectively fixing a *relative class level* as minimum) rather than a particular monetary amount (whose relative buying power versus inflation or other incomes can fluctuate wildly). We pick a subsidy level, say 1/3 (33.33333%). We then impose a flat income tax of that level plus a little bit more for administration costs (say, 35%). At the end of the year, everyone is taxed at that flat level, and the government scrapes its administration costs off the top and now has a big pot with 1/3 of everyone's income in it. This is divided into one portion for each taxpayer, and those portions into monthly or biweekly pieces. These pieces are sent out regularly as checks to the taxpayer, and *these checks are not taxed as income*. That last bit is what makes this so nice: it turns the tax progressive, in fact more progressive than our current system. After taxes and *after stipend*, only the rich will pay an *effective* tax rate asymptotically close to the real 35%. Most people without incomes many, many times the size of their stipends will be looking at an effective tax rate of less than 15%, including the tax-paying middle class and the professional upper-middle class who currently bitch so much about our tax rates being so confiscatory (which they *are*, for the abysmal level of social services we receive). Now, to get back to the big benefits of fixing the subsidy percentage. This means that the subsidy grows with mean income, effectively functioning as easy to run, fair, and direct wealth redistribution without the difficulty of trying to create efficient, productive WPA-style jobs or imposing market-distorting subsidies. It also means that we can allow things like automation to improve the productivity of our economy because *everyone* gets a share: if automating a certain job is truly more efficient than having a worker do it, the capitalist's income-gain from automation will push up the mean income, and therefore the basic income, further than the worker's lesser income and the capitalist's lesser profit would have.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b95d0ed144da13e2d4872f034f7d0151", "text": "well, but to the best of my understanding we *do* subsidize the Koch Bros extremely heavily. my sense of things is that Soros is not popular with the powers that be, and left out of the subsidies, but please enlighten me if i am wrong. i am interested and curious. also cynical but thats another post. hah", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7474c47838a44b167ea5ed7e98c7c088", "text": "Yes, your assumptions are correct. The industry realizes that the equilibrium price of product A is $10. The government decides to increase the amount of people who can access product A. They do this by subsidizing $5 of the $10 dollar cost. However the industry reacts by increasing the cost of product A by the amount of the subsidy (so product A is now priced at $15), because the industry knows people already can afford paying $10. This is not exclusive to medicine, it is also happening with higher education. Here is a paper that examines the effect of government subsidization of college tuition. The study finds that as financial aid increased, there was a 102% correlation with the increase in the cost of tuition. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13711.pdf", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba5851f5170c2bfd280aca1fcfd84f22", "text": "A service provider that prevents competition by making it illegal to compete. Every other insurance program allows you to opt out. And i wouldnt consider it protection when they stick there dick into everyone elses business. Every gang or mafia claims to protect those it shakes down. Edit.. Just because you wear a brown shirt doesnt make you a righteous person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c37656edd7d3463cbc010c541ef917f7", "text": "Clearly the semantics of the discussion are of greater importance to you. Hospitals are not directly subsidized by the government. Medicare originated with two parts: Part A: Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) which covers hospital / hospice costs and Part B: Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) which covers outpatient costs. Part C was added later by Clinton, which set up a system of selection of health insurance through private companies, and those private companies are then subsidized by the federal government.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54c2bdbd4b4d608641614b279fe26cdf", "text": "Not really. There are rules against subsidizing markets that inflict injury on like industries among WTO nations. Bombardier is violating that rule by getting subsidies for commercial airliners. Boeing gets government loans for Department Of Defense contracts, but not for commercial jets. Canada has a bad habit of side stepping NAFTA and WTO guidelines and they're upset someone is finally calling them on it. If Canada wants to subsidize markets that fellow WTO nations do not participate in, fine. They have that opportunity. Bombardier was not that.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
5d5c914fd4fc72cc90d492cf63847f6d
Who sets the prices on government bonds?
[ { "docid": "08279327cb374f26ca370c33cba6526b", "text": "\"Who sets the prices? Effectively the market does, like basically all openly traded things. The Greek government could well have said \"\"5% is as high as we will go\"\". As a result, investors may not have chosen to buy the securities. The global bond market is highly liquid, and investors who have a choice could well then choose to go elsewhere. The reasons could well be varied, but primary among them would be that investors view Greek investments as more than 5% risky. If I can get 5% from a country that I deem less risky than from Greece, my choice is clear. Therefore to be compensated for loaning them my money, I am expecting a return of 7% because there is the possibility that they will default. As for not selling them at all, if they could avoid issuing bonds, most governments would. They may not have had much of a choice. If they just print more money, that does other potentially bad things to the economy. The government needs funds to operate, if they are not collecting enough in taxes, for example, and do not want to print money as I mentioned, then bonds are one other common way to raise cash. Notwithstanding that in your example you are referring to the interest rate, not the price, the principal is the same.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "e03ffaa92d15930d884ee78fd0f02558", "text": "Those are the expected yields; they are not guaranteed. This was actually the bread and butter of Graham Newman, mispriced bonds. Graham's writings in the Buffett recommended edition of Securities Analysis are invaluable to bond valuation. The highest yielder now is a private subsidiary of Société Générale. A lack of financial statements availability and the fact that this is the US derivatives markets subsidiary are probably the cause of the higher rates. The cost is about a million USD to buy them. The rest will be similar cases, but Graham's approach could find a diamond; however, bonds are big ticket items, so one should expect to pay many hundreds of thousands of USD per trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d37196a48b37a2316c05a349ab0af9cf", "text": "\"So how does one of these get set up exactly? If a private company wants to backstop their ability to repay bond obligations with public funds, doesn't an agreement like that have to go through something like a city council meeting before it's approved? If it does, and that happened in these cases, then the municipalities made a bad decision on an \"\"investment\"\" that included some level of risk, just like any other investment they make. If it doesn't work out, it shouldn't be a surprise who's on the hook for the payment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44d10cf8dea72d350a41c0b3a9d9bb61", "text": "\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \"\"lending\"\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \"\"saver\"\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \"\"Savers\"\" therefore \"\"shop around\"\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \"\"invisible hand\"\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebe6ac0b79f9cec2027e75b7e1e713e5", "text": "You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "13ad0143a8523b975c7b299bed7ecf3c", "text": "\"The rate of the bond is fixed. But there is a risk known as \"\"interest rate risk\"\". Basically, if you have a 2 percent bond and market rates are 4 percent, you'll have to offer your bond at a discount or nobody would buy it. So if you ever needed to sell it, you'd lose a bit of money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "3eb06ff7ab226eddd36864af44dba95c", "text": "\"They could have printed 5.0T or 10.0T or 1000 quadrillion. It doesnt make any difference for the steps a Central Bank takes. They choose a figure based on balancing inflation vs interest rates. The legal powers Central Banks or IMF have do vary (i.e. to perform quantitative easing, purchasing company bonds, purchasing retail bank bonds) but they all follow that principle. Their tools are very limited and theyre legally obligated to seek certain targets like \"\"inflation between 0 to 2%\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0d570729d6309ccf9878653379d3654", "text": "The literal answer to your question 'what determines the price of an ETF' is 'the market'; it is whatever price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. But if the market price of an ETF share deviates significantly from its NAV, the per-share market value of the securities in its portfolio, then an Authorized Participant can make an arbitrage profit by a transaction (creation or redemption) that pushes the market price toward NAV. Thus as long as the markets are operating and the APs don't vanish in a puff of smoke we can expect price will track NAV. That reduces your question to: why does NAV = market value of the holdings underlying a bond ETF share decrease when the market interest rate rises? Let's consider an example. I'll use US Treasuries because they have very active markets, are treated as risk-free (although that can be debated), and excluding special cases like TIPS and strips are almost perfectly fungible. And I use round numbers for convenience. Let's assume the current market interest rate is 2% and 'Spindoctor 10-year Treasury Fund' opens for business with $100m invested (via APs) in 10-year T-notes with 2% coupon at par and 1m shares issued that are worth $100 each. Now assume the interest rate goes up to 3% (this is an example NOT A PREDICTION); no one wants to pay par for a 2% bond when they can get 3% elsewhere, so its value goes down to about 0.9 of par (not exactly due to the way the arithmetic works but close enough) and Spindoctor shares similarly slide to $90. At this price an investor gets slightly over 2% (coupon*face/basis) plus approximately 1% amortized capital gain (slightly less due to time value) per year so it's competitive with a 3% coupon at par. As you say new bonds are available that pay 3%. But our fund doesn't hold them; we hold old bonds with a face value of $100m but a market value of only $90m. If we sell those bonds now and buy 3% bonds to (try to) replace them, we only get $90m par value of 3% bonds, so now our fund is paying a competitive 3% but NAV is still only $90. At the other extreme, say we hold the 2% bonds to maturity, paying out only 2% interest but letting our NAV increase as the remaining term (duration) and thus discount of the bonds decreases -- assuming the market interest rate doesn't change again, which for 10 years is probably unrealistic (ignoring 2009-2016!). At the end of 10 years the 2% bonds are redeemed at par and our NAV is back to $100 -- but from the investor's point of view they've forgone $10 in interest they could have received from an alternative investment over those 10 years, which is effectively an additional investment, so the original share price of $90 was correct.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94f4b3bad0673cfc2d66983ab898f89d", "text": "What you said is technically correct. But the implication OP might get from that statement is wrong. If the Fed buys bonds and nominal yields go down (Sometimes they might even go up if it meant the market expected the Fed's actions to cause more inflation), inflation expectations don't go down unless real yields as measured by TIPs stay still.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9883bc47d8fd12d8301ff1079d0e0bdc", "text": "\"I think a lot of this goes to the short-sightedness of the government that was in place at the time of the first default. They caused it, and their attempt at cleaning things up just kicked the can down the road. If they would have added in a \"\"class action\"\" clause that most bonds now have, what they settled with a majority would apply to all bond-holders. What they did was the opposite: added in a clause in which the low-water mark was set by the deal that was least favourable for them. It was probably a misguided attempt at assuaging the markets with the consequences we now see...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2aa481ffa2d33951bfdbbab1ebf2c7cb", "text": "Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity. Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15e8bee2da522fc40bf064208134acbd", "text": "yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8be50d70cfd1d6fccfbdcd413d166f0", "text": "\"The Bank of Canada does not \"\"set\"\" the interest rates. They auction government debt, and then report what the average yield/interest rate was (rounded to 25 basis points). [The average yield of yesterday's auction of 3-month Treasury bills was 0.76%](http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/interest-rates/t-bill-yields/). I don't know why the news tries to interpret what the BOC \"\"is trying to say\"\". BOC isn't saying anything - just reporting what happened, with some filler words.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb1cf8423107a911bd071f131354e0dc", "text": "If you are looking for money to speculate in the capital markets, then your brokers will already lend to you at a MUCH more favorable rate than an outside party will. For instance, with $4,000 you could EASILY control $40,000 with many brokers, at a 1% interest rate. This is 10:1 leverage, much like how US banks operate... every dollar that you deposit with them, they speculate with 10x as much. Interactive Brokers will do this for you with your current credit score. They are very reputable and clear through Goldman Sachs, so although reputable is subjective in the investment banking world, you won't have to worry the federal government raiding them or anything. If you are investing in currencies than you can easily do 50:1 leverage as an American, or 100:1 as anyone else. This means with only $400 dollars you can control $40,000 account. If you are investing in the futures market, then there are many many ways to double and triple and quadruple your leverage at the lowest interests rates. Any contract you enter into is a loan from the market. You have to understand, that if you did happen to have $40,000 of your own money, then you could get $4,000,000 account size for speculating, at 1% interest. Again, these are QUICK ways to lose your money and owe a lot more! So I'd really advise against it. A margin call in the futures market can destroy you. I advise you to just think more efficiently until you come up with a way to earn that much money initially, and then speculate.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
da4af2250552a6918bfb334c77d75daa
What does quantitative easing 2 mean for my bank account?
[ { "docid": "9ae6bb4df00454b020003c9348baf8aa", "text": "QE2 will mean that there are about $500 billion dollars in existence which weren't there before. These dollars will all be competing with the existing dollars for real goods and services, so each dollar will be worth a little less, and prices will rise a little. This is inflation. You can probably expect 1.5%-2% annual inflation for the US dollar over the next several years (the market certainly does in the aggregate, anyway). This is in terms of US-based goods and services. QE2 will also reduce the amount of other currencies you can get for the same dollar amount. The extent to which this will occur is less clear, in part because other currencies are also considering quantitative easing. Your long-term savings should probably not be in cash anyway, because of the low returns; this will probably affect you far more than the impact of quantitative easing. As for your savings which do remain in cash, what you should do with them depends on how you plan to dispose of them. The value of a currency is usually pretty stable in terms of the local economy's output of goods and services - it's the value in international trade which tends to fluctuate wildly. If you keep your savings in the same currency you plan to spend them in, they should be able to maintain their value decently well in the intermediate term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "103f55895f58d26ed4d4ccd96c1ac011", "text": "IMO, QE2 will likely have no perceptible impact in the near term. Keeping all of your savings in a bank guarantees that you will lose money to inflation & taxes. I'd suggest consulting a financial advisor -- preferably someone who understands issues facing someone with assets in the US and Canada. In terms of what portion of your savings should be in USD vs. CAD, that's going to depend on your situation. I'd probably want more assets in the place that I'm living in for the next several years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d260b646640677769c5e0a9bdaf5c6ca", "text": "Probably means next to zero chance of having decent rates on savings accounts for the near future - who needs your money if banks can have government money for free? Probably no short-term effects on you besides that.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "b2e48515aa9d61db8cdfc0c509211815", "text": "\"he is saying that \"\"QE\"\" meaning \"\"quantitative easing\"\" meaning \"\"the theory that the government flooded the markets with money, artificially driving up the price of stocks\"\" meant that hedge funds, which HEDGE, and benefit from an up-and-down market, couldn't win in a market where it just kept going up. It's basically a conspiracy theory bears have been pushing for years \"\"QE artificially inflated the market, it's gonna crash!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba960eb7f7436e5f3824be9fad756a02", "text": "If you're willing to use OFX or QIF files, most Canadian banks can spit output more data than 90 days. The files are typically used to import into Quicken-like local programs, but can be easily parsed for your webapp, I imagine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9cdcdff137ec7b88535795c9b4a7540", "text": "\"From the banks point of view the point of a current account like this is to get you as a regular customer. They want to be your \"\"main bank\"\", the bank you interact with the most, the bank you turn to first when you need financial products and services, the bank whose advertising you see every time you log into online banking or walk into a branch. The bank knows that if they just offer the unprofitablly high interest rate or other perks with no strings attatched that people will open the account and dump a bunch of savings in it but won't actually move their financial life over, their old bank will still be their main bank. So they attatch strings like a required minimum deposit, a minimum number of direct debits and similar. These have minimal effect on people actually using the account as their main current account while being a pain for people trying to game the system. Of course as you point out it is still possible to game the system but they don't need to make gaming the system impossible, they just need to make it inconvianiant enough that most people won't bother.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61cce25bf7d6e1960d57634868b4996f", "text": "\"You've asked eleven different questions here. Therefore, The first thing I'd recommend is this: Don't panic. Seek answers to your questions systematically, one at a time. Search this site (and others) to see if there are answers to some of them. You're in good shape if for no other reason than you're asking these when you're young. Investing and saving are great things to do, but you also have time going for you. I recommend that you use your \"\"other eight hours per day\"\" to build up other income streams. That potentially will get you far more than a 2% deposit. Any investment can be risky or safe. It depends on both your personal context and that of the larger economy. The best answers will come from your own research and from your advisors (since they will be able to see where you are financially, and in life).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "531c24fc4799a873aaae9d2509686043", "text": "What are you using the analysis for? If your analyzing your interest rate risk then you want to determine decay rates for your non-maturity deposits. Assuming your bank uses ALM software to produce your Earnings-at-Risk (EAR) and Economic Value of Equity (EVE) metrics, the decay rate assumptions make a big difference in those numbers. Most ALM models have default assumptions that may not be correct for your institution, and as a result are giving you EAR and EVE numbers that are not at all accurate. Basically you want to have some analysis that proves how you are bucketing your NMDs (3,6,9, 12, 24 months?). Are your deposits sticky or are they affected by small changes in interest rates? You can look at historical numbers to determine how your deposits behave, but be sure to go back more than 3-4 years as deposit behavior has been pretty abnormal since 2008 with rates near zero. Similarly, you may want to try and identify 'surge' deposits that came into your bank due to the low rate environment and as soon as rates rise they will move into higher earning assets (stocks, bond, money markets).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8581237521e013efb99dba1ca0c48598", "text": "Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore. I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months. Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97aa231a19798daa12a7ee08fa689c13", "text": "\"Suppose you have $100 today and suppose that hamburgers cost $5. If you are holding $100, you could buy 20 hamburgers at $5 each. Now suppose you take that $100 and stuff it under your mattress for 24 years. When you pull out your money, you still have $100, but it turns out hamburgers now cost $10. The increase from $5 to $10 is inflation. Your savings of $100 was \"\"eroded\"\" by half even though before and after you had $100 and now you can only buy 10 hamburgers instead of 20 hamburgers. Suppose inflation is 3%. That means that if you earn 3% return on your investments, you'll stay even with inflation (If you can buy 20 hamburgers today, then at any point you can still buy 20 hamburgers). If you want your money to grow in a real, tangible way you'll want to seek returns that beat the rate of inflation.\"", "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": "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": "4f8f5fa9a7144cf472c4d3c3c924557d", "text": "\"The point here is actually about banks, or is in reference to banks. They expect you know how a savings account at a bank works, but not mutual funds, and so are trying to dispel an erroneous notion that you might have -- that the CBIC will insure your investment in the fund. Banks work by taking in deposits and lending that money out via mortgages. The mortgages can last up to 30 years, but the deposits are \"\"on demand\"\". Which means you can pull your money out at any time. See the problem? They're maintaining a fiction that that money is there, safe and sound in the bank vault, ready to be returned whenever you want it, when in fact it's been loaned out. And can't be called back quickly, either. They know only a little bit of that money will be \"\"demanded\"\" by depositors at any given time, so they keep a percentage called a \"\"reserve\"\" to satisfy that, er, demand. The rest, again, is loaned out. Gone. And usually that works out just fine. Except sometimes it doesn't, when people get scared they might not get their money back, and they all go to the bank at the same time to demand their on-demand deposits back. This is called a \"\"run on the bank\"\", and when that happens, the bank \"\"fails\"\". 'Cause it ain't got the money. What's failing, in fact, is the fiction that your money is there whenever you want it. And that's really bad, because when that happens to you at your bank, your friends the customers of other banks start worrying about their money, and run on their banks, which fail, which cause more people to worry and try to get their cash out, lather, rinse repeat, until the whole economy crashes. See -- The Great Depression. So, various governments introduced \"\"Deposit Insurance\"\", where the government will step in with the cash, so when you panic and pull all your money out of the bank, you can go home happy, cash in hand, and don't freak all your friends out. Therefore, the fear that your money might not really be there is assuaged, and it doesn't spread like a mental contagion. Everyone can comfortably go back to believing the fiction, and the economy goes back to merrily chugging along. Meanwhile, with mutual funds & ETFs, everyone understands the money you put in them is invested and not sitting in a gigantic vault, and so there's no need for government insurance to maintain the fiction. And that's the point they're trying to make. Poorly, I might add, where their wording is concerned.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f73dc803fba81d5dfb602b8038cccdb", "text": "It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c480cc34018d4f6ac8d9e295e42efa98", "text": "It is different this time. But I think the risk of asset prices rising is almost as equal as them falling. QE caused asset price inflation, but QE was only to calm/support the market. They're probably not going to stuff that QE money back into the central bank for a very long time either. Maybe, they'll just keep rolling over the bonds out to maturity, while relying on deficits to inflate away the assets at the Fed. https://youtu.be/o8LAUQwv77Q My bet is the main risks going forward are political risks, and continued modest inflation among things not measured by CPI.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1c518e8ea450af1759d301a37bb17aa", "text": "This bit of marketing, like the zero-percent introductory rates some banks offer, is intended to make you more willing to carry a balance, and they're hoping you'll continue that bad habit after the rate goes back up. If you don't think you'll be tempted by the lower rate, yhere's no reason not to accept (unless there's something in the fine print that changes your agreement in other ways; read carefully). But as you say, there's no reason to accept ir either. I'd ignore it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0c5d572daf63971196fc6cffc133484", "text": "If your savings are in USD and will be making purchases using USD, then it will no longer go as far as it used to. I assume most Americans currently have their savings accounts in USD, so the value of those accounts will decrease. If you have investments in stocks or foreign currencies, your exposure may be less, but it depends. For example, stocks in companies that hold a lot of USD will also be hit hard, as will be currencies of nations that are still holding a lot of USD if the value of the USD is crashing. If you have a lot of debt measured in USD, while have a lot of assets that have nothing to do with USD, then you might make out like a bandit, since if you assume the value of the USD is falling, then it would become easier to sell off your other assets to pay off the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3440392865922705522359d6a305d0c9", "text": "I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
c6ca34c3d61299f07902d0387e68db77
What is the big deal about the chinese remnibi trading hub that opened in toronto
[ { "docid": "9502308b68e5cffb5c3f0fbd260caeb6", "text": "Chinese suppliers can quote their price in CNY rather than USD (as has been typical), and thus avoid the exchange risk from US dollar volatility- the CNY has been generally appreciating so committing to receive payments in US dollars when their costs are in CNY means they are typically on the losing end of the equation and they have to pad their prices a bit. Canadian importers will have to buy RMB (typically with CAD) to pay for their orders and Canadian exporters can take payment in RMB if they wish, or set prices in CAD. By avoiding the US dollar middleman the transactions are made less risky and incur less costs. Japan did this many decades ago (they, too, used to price their products in USD). This is important in transactions of large amounts, not so much for the tiny amounts associated with tourism. Two-way annual trade between China and Canada is in excess of $70bn. Of course Forex trading may greatly exceed the actual amounts required for trade- the world Forex market is at least an order of magnitude greater than size of real international trade. All that trading in currency and financial instruments means more jobs on Bay Street and more money flowing into a very vital part of the Canadian economy. Recent article from the (liberal) Toronto Star here.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "d9479a92b91dfca71bbd90e5f1194c56", "text": "Those are towns with dwindling populations. Val D'or, the core of it, for instance is like 2 miles by 2 miles and has 3 McDs. All the kids in the province go study in bigger cities like Quebec or Montreal when fall comes because college is practically free and university is really cheap. This is not news, merely that those towns have too much fast food joints for their population anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9709d537f7e0c36d061f13dd63e53460", "text": "Obviously China whispered to NK to chill. But the tweetmaster had been bullhorning about China being the control in that area of the world and not being active in that role while also sending the fleet. And it finally happened, after the UN tightened their trade down. So thats actually 3 things. UN action, China co-operation, NK standdown.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8048f155db62bfb0eaa57d8e8fd2e102", "text": "\"[Link 1] (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-12/two-chinese-provinces-falsified-economic-data-inspectors-say) [Link 2] (https://www.ft.com/content/a5bf42e2-03cf-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9) [Link 3] (https://www.ft.com/content/0361c1a4-bcfe-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080) China has been cooking their books, just like the U.S. has been doing it the past few years. Just google \"\"U.S. Central banks buying stocks and bonds\"\", then connect the numbers. **Insider Information:** At my previous company we sold solar manufacturing equipment. I went to said Chinese city that bought our equipment. They were producing ton loads of solar panels, I asked one of the manager's where all of the panels were being sold (domestic, or international?). To my surprise, he said they warehoused the panels they produced; because, there weren't enough customers. And, why were they warehousing the panels? Because, the Chinese government needed to show numbers that jobs were plenty, and manufacturing was still strong.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad766ebd8bb78cde5a30f7e50124700c", "text": "I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/talkbusiness] [Starting a restaurant in Toronto (Canada)](https://np.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/789f5l/starting_a_restaurant_in_toronto_canada/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4341abf862459a30f0788a56b0a0d37", "text": "Well that is another story altogether. Cynically, I would say that having HK as an international financial center under Chinese sovereignty makes it easy for officials within the CCP to launder money outside the country, because most people with money in China want to go elsewhere, or because they feel uneasy about their chances of being shot for corruption. Why, even Xi Dada has his two flats in the Grand Hyatt here... But HK is in trouble because this might not be reason enough...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2d42137aed0a277db3fba7aab67fa1b", "text": "EFA must be bought and sold in US dollars. XIN allows people to buy and sell EFA in Canadian dollars without exposing their investment to unpredictable swings in the USD/CAD ratio. This is what's known as a currency-hedged instrument. Now, why the chart sums up to over 100% is anyone's guess. Presumably it's the result of a couple hundred rounding errors from all the components. If you view their most recent report, it also sums up to over 100%, but at least the EFA component is (sensibly) under 100%. P.S. I'm not seeing where it says there's only one holding. There's the primary holding, plus over 100 other cash holdings to effect the currency-hedging.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2a2533e21d9c3937663ce32404664fa", "text": "This factory is also for cars being sold into China. It makes sense for the factory that serves the China market to be close to where the cars are going. Especially since so many of the components of the car are made in China in the first place. (Toyota, VW, BMW, etc make cars in the US for a reason!) EDIT: My original comment said these cars were only for the Chinese market and that is wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84dd87a2dcf847b04520b2a27c544ef8", "text": "It will be painful for the world, but not in the same way that the Western financial crisis of '08 was painful. This will mostly hurt China, as well as western companies whose marginal revenue and growth is dependent upon Chinese business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52b55224b4c29cb6c20ed7f506aa740a", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.baldingsworld.com/2017/10/23/everything-we-think-we-know-about-chinese-finances-is-wrong/) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; We do not know what these assets hold other than three broad categories comprised of guarantee, commitment operations, and financial asset services which even then only comprise 79% of the total 253 trillion. &gt; Chinese citizens and firms have a very real interest in switching into similar foreign assets while foreigners have very little interest in switching into Chinese assets. &gt; I have long noted that there is fundamentally, absent controls, a much larger structural non-cyclical interest in purchasing foreign assets by Chinese than in purchasing Chinese assets by foreigners. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78e60t/everything_we_think_we_know_about_chinese/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233958 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*: **asset**^#1 **Bank**^#2 **financial**^#3 **China**^#4 **balance**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "589c916aea3a5fdabf66704468b2d677", "text": "Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content: * [Wealth Management Products in China [pdf]](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/78kwt4/wealth_management_products_in_china_pdf/) on /r/Economics with 3 karma (created at 2017-10-25 10:50:52 by /u/LtCmdrData) ---- ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index)-[Code](https://github.com/PokestarFan/DuplicateBot)-[Bugs](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypgmx/bugs_and_problems/)-[Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypg85/suggestion_for_duplicatesbot/)-[Block](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index#wiki_block_bot_from_tagging_on_your_posts) ^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adf7cb34059baa66baec3efdef1c35c1", "text": "There's huge slack in Asia it still needs to absorb before it has to worry about dilution. This was a record number, but it was only 9% growth over last year, and half were in ASPAC. As china's financial sector booms it's natural that the number of people there sitting for the CFA would explode as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d32a1decfd5376322d3f19af1ceda721", "text": "Also I think everyone forgets that a lot of the time U.S. Bonds are the ONLY place to park money. Where else can someone invest 1.5 trillion? I think between the bond yields and inflation rate, China isn't really making a profit on this investment. Better to lose a little than a lot I guess. The problem with the U.S. is that they don't use this profitable scheme to pay down debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6793a6a1575da4ad1a9d16fb8292de7f", "text": "I apologize to you too :) the first comment I made I thought was pretty funny so I felt a little surprised when I saw it the next day. Yeah, China has improved and most people who have office jobs or are small business owners play. Apple actually tried to use the hunger tactic of selling iPhones, they would release them in every country then finally starve china so when it's released everyone flocks. Then Chinese people mini revolted and apple lost like 2 billion or smt, and had to apologize. Mob rule is pretty powerful sometimes ;) Where in Australia did you live? I was in the Gold Coast before also moving to the states.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a2d6f5e9aee81d3da4405f9e2b98a3e", "text": "\"Amazon has some major issues with growing out in Seattle, primarily infrastructure and geography. Seattle's infrastructure is stretched, leading to some hilarious activity - \"\"http://kuow.org/post/seattle-traffic-got-so-bad-guy-started-flying-work\"\". Also, Seattle is locked between the sea and the mountains, and with a limited supply of land, there isn't anywhere to build economically. NO ROOM TO GROW. Ontario has a few good things going for it: Healthcare, Immigration, Low corporate taxes, Education... But there are also some elephants. Ontario has some of the highest land costs in the world, longest commute times on the planet, and a government which will inevitably need to raise taxes. If I had to bet, we'll probably see Amazon set up shop in a City with low land costs, ring roads, and a low debt government. A place with room to grow. Raleigh/Durham Dallas-Fort Worth Denver Minneapolis Salt Lake City Cincinnati\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1adeb087becc5bb652d0e6520b5c3452", "text": "This story really misses the point of this deal. This is not an inversion fueled by tax savings. In fact, it would likely end up in very little tax savings for the new companies given the effective tax rate that BK actually pays in the US (They actually pay 27% in the US vs about 26.5% in Ontario, where Tim Horton's is now). Headquartering the new company in Canada has a lot more to do with placating Canadian regulators. The Investment Canada Act allows for the government to block any merger it doesn't see as in the best interests of the country. Clearly, one of it's biggest and most visible companies being swallowed up by an American firm could fit that description. Politically, it is easy to see why regulators would have an issue with that. However, if you make the new company Canadian... then it's seen as a win for regulators.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
36ce137cd444b05a800888c1d08cb949
Opportunity to buy Illinois bonds that can never default?
[ { "docid": "fae63f941025620056514a2584d9274e", "text": "\"Can't declare bankruptcy isn't the same as \"\"can't default\"\". Bankruptcy is a specific legal process for discharging or restructuring debts. If Illinois can't declare bankruptcy, that means it will still owe you the money for the bonds no matter what, but it doesn't guarantee that it will actually pay you what it owes. If Illinois should run out of money to pay what's due on its bonds, then it will default. Unlike the federal government, Illinois can't print money to make the payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a62c1a1a6e6730478c6baf65f0c70e36", "text": "\"If Illinois cannot go bankruptcy This is missing a few, very important words, \"\"...under current law.\"\" The United States changed the law so as to allow Puerto Rico to go into a form of bankruptcy. So you cannot rely on a lack of legal support for bankruptcy to protect any bond investments you might make in Illinois. It is entirely possible for the federal government to add a law enabling a state to discharge its debts through a bankruptcy process. That's why the bonds have been downgraded. They are still fine now, but that could change at any time. I don't want to dive too deep into the politics on this stack, but I could quite easily see a bargain between US President Donald Trump and Democrats in Congress where he agreed to special privileges for pension debts owed to former employees in exchange for full discharge of all other debts. That would lead to a complete loss of value for the bonds that you are considering. There still seem to be other options now, but they seem to be getting closer and closer to that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "945ec7648a923bc792eb62d9376ed17d", "text": "If you give money to a person or entity, and they don't have the ability to pay you back, it doesn't matter if they are legally required to pay you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6627e09ac69b769280a54d790890ead1", "text": "\"Sovereign immunity is the state's ultimate \"\"get out of bankruptcy free\"\" card. After all, the state has a hand in defining what bankruptcy even is in their state. Federal law is a framework, states customize it from there. The state's simplest tactic is to simply not pay you. And leave you scrambling to the courthouse for redress. Is that an automatic win? Not really, the State can plead sovereign immunity, e.g. Hans v. Louisiana, Alden v. Maine. You could try to pierce that sovereign immunity, essentially you'd be in Federal court trying to force the state into bankruptcy. This would pit State authority against Federal authority. The Feds are just as likely to come in on the state's side, and you lose. Best scenario, it's a knock-down drag-out all the way to the Supreme Court. You would have to be one heck of a creditor for the legal fees to be worth your trouble. States don't make a habit of this because if they did, no one would lend money to them, and this would be rather bad for the economy all around. So business and government work really hard to avert it. But it always stands as their \"\"nuclear option\"\". And you gotta know that when loaning money to States.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "478cdde040cedfb6e01af7f6e8296744", "text": "I looked into the investopedia one (all their videos are mazing), but that detail just was not clear to me, it also makes be wonder, if a country issues bonds to finance itself, what happens at maturity when literally millions of them need to be paid? The income needs to have grown to that level or it defaults? Wouldn't all the countries default if that was the case, or are bonds being issued to being able to pay maturity of older bonds already? (I'm freaking myself out by realizing this)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6d9456ced95d82d4b55a30dcd8ae546", "text": "Russia has become more risky as an investment, thus investors, basically the market, wants to be paid more for investing in or owning those bonds. As yields go up, prices go down. So right now you can buy a low priced Russian bond with a high yield because the market views the risk involved as higher than risks involved in other similar securities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09341e6010c64a265197ec01f49e1ee6", "text": "As no one has mentioned them I will... The US Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative. The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32c99fe52d2e5eeb262512161d0e5709", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-25/investors-say-it-s-time-to-price-climate-into-cities-bond-risks) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Municipal defaults are rare: Moody&amp;#039;s reports fewer than 100 defaults by municipal borrowers it rated between 1970 and 2014. &gt; Kurt Forsgren, a managing director at S&amp;P, said its municipal ratings remain &amp;quot;Largely driven by financial performance.&amp;quot; He said the company was looking for ways to account for climate change in ratings, including through a city&amp;#039;s ability to access insurance. &gt; Laskey, of Fitch, was skeptical that rating companies could or should account for climate risk in municipal ratings. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejcgp/rising_seas_may_wipe_out_these_jersey_towns_but/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133538 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*: **rated**^#1 **climate**^#2 **risk**^#3 **bond**^#4 **change**^#5\"", "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": "c0d0368bdda605c51b53c580867697f1", "text": "US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b1bae7921e2964548e4bfb52f74808c", "text": "\"All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect. Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit. That makes such accounts less risky. There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you. You'll find, however, that the bond market also \"\"knows\"\" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment. When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer. They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.) This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company. With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An \"\"ownership share of the government\"\" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government. Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them. That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else. Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell. Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e1d5d0f243389e114a65d8c5ecb0d2b", "text": "Risk is reduced but isn't zero The default risk is still there, the issuer can go bankrupt, and you can still loose all or some of your money if restructuring happens. If the bond has a callable option, the issuer can retire them if conditions are favourable for the issuer, you can still loose some of your investment. Callable schedule should be in the bond issuer's prospectus while issuing the bond. If the issuer is in a different country, that brings along a lot of headaches of recovering your money if something goes bad i.e. forex rates can go up and down. YTM, when the bond was bought was greater than risk free rate(govt deposit rates) Has to be greater than the risk free rate, because of the extra risk you are taking. Reinvestment risk is less because of the short term involved(I am assuming 2-3 years at max), but you should also look at the coupon rate of your bond, if it isn't a zero-coupon bond, and how you invest that. would it be ideal to hold the bond till maturity irrespective of price change It always depends on the current conditions. You cannot be sure that everything is fine, so it pays to be vigilant. Check the health of the issuer, any adverse circumstances, and the overall economy as a whole. As you intend to hold till maturity you should be more concerned about the serviceability of the bond by the issuer on maturity and till then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ae24f7eb0621e7c87284229bddaaa9f", "text": "The Barclay's 20+ Year Treasury Bond inception date was July 21, 2002. You aren't going to find treasury bond information going back to 1900 because Treasury Bills have only been issued since 1929. The U.S. Department of the Treasury will give you data back to 1990. There's a good article in the Globe and Mail which covers why you may want to buy bonds as part of your portfolio. The key is diversification. Historically, stocks have done better than bonds long-term, but when stocks fall, bonds tend to (though do not always) go up. If you are investing for 30 years, the risk of putting money into bonds is that you will not make as much money as if you had put the money into stocks. Historically (in the US or Canada), you'd have seen positive returns, just not as high as investing in the stock market. There are many investment strategies. I live in Canada and personally favour the one described in the Canadian Couch Potato, a passive index investment strategy where I invest my money in Canadian, U.S. and International equity (stock market mutual funds) and also in a Canadian bond fund. There are, of course, plenty of people who will tell you to take a radically different strategy with your investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62f3d7b741fce8fcb3f608bb101fc0c5", "text": "\"All of the other answers here are accurate, but (I think) are missing the point as to the question, which rests on how Bonds work in the first place. The bond specifies a payback AMOUNT and DATE. Let's say it is $10,000 and one year from today. If you buy that today for $9900, your yield will be 1%. If you buy it today for $11,000, your yield will be less than 0% (please don't make me do the math - it's just under negative 1%). You might be willing to pay that 1% (rather than receive 1%) for the certainty that you will definitely get your money back. The combined actions of all the people who may be willing to pay a little more or a little less for the safety of a US Treasury Bond is what people call \"\"the Market.\"\" Market forces (generally, investor confidence) will drive the price up and down, which affects the yield. All the other stuff - coupons and inflation and whatnot - all of that only makes sense if you understand that you aren't buying a rate of return, you are buying a payback amount and date.\"", "title": "" }, { "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": "82133eec33d53e68afd1aae5ca19f57c", "text": "No, there isn't. There are a number of reasons that institutions buy these bonds but as an individual you're likely better off in a low-yield cash account. By contrast, there would be a reason to hold a low-yield (non-zero) bond rather than an alternative low-yield product.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4ae774d48fa6d2cae21d71ed5c702bf", "text": "\"A (very) simplified bond-pricing equation goes thus: Fair_Price: {Face_Value * (1 + Interest - Expected_Market_Return) ^ (Years_To_Maturity)} * P(Company_Will_Default_Before_Maturity) To reiterate, that is a very simplified model. But it allows us to demonstrate the 3 key factors that drive \"\"Fair\"\" Value: The interest relative to the current market rate. If your AAA bond yields 1%, but an equally-good AAA bond currently sells at 3% in the market, then the \"\"Equivalent\"\" value is the face value minus 2% (1% - 3%) for every year to maturity. Years to maturity. Because 1) is multiplied for every year to maturity, longer-dated bonds are more sensitive to changes in market rates. If your bond yields 2% less than market but matures in a year, then it's worth $98, but if it matures in 56 years, then it's only worth 0.98^56 = $32. Conversely, if your bond yields more than the market rate, then its' price will be greater than face value. The company might default on the debt. If a Bond has a \"\"Fair\"\" Value of $100, but you think there's a 50% chance that the company will default, then it's only worth $50. In fact, it can be worth even less because getting paid on a defaulted bond can often take time and/or money and/or lawyers. In your case, because your bond matures in 56 years but yields ~5% (well above the current market rate), for it to be below Face value implies a strong probability of default, or a strong belief that market returns will be above 5% over the next 56 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "238acb579177dbbd1370975042f0620f", "text": "Usually Bonds are used to raised capital when a lender doesn't want to take on sole risk of lending. If you are looking at raising anything below 10m bonds are not a option because the bank will just extend you a line of credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de4312884f19663ad7e0d0e07b86898f", "text": "You're talking about floating rate loans. It's so that the bond is marked back to market every 90 days. Any more often would be a hassle to deal with for everyone involved, any less often and they would be significant variance from LIBOR vs. the loan's specific rate.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
df16704684d057cfcb5834148d2c38cf
How to quantify differences in return with low expense ratio vs high expense ratio mutual funds?
[ { "docid": "bdcf05dafe8669ec0c776f77e15f1190", "text": "Yes you should take in the expenses being incurred by the mutual fund. This lists down the fees charged by the mutual fund and where expenses can be found in the annual statement of the fund. To calculate fees and expenses. As you might expect, fees and expenses vary from fund to fund. A fund with high costs must perform better than a low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even small differences in fees can translate into large differences in returns over time. You don't pay expenses, so the money is taken from the assets of the fund. So you pay it indirectly. If the expenses are huge, that may point to something i.e. fund managers are enjoying at your expense, money is being used somewhere else rather than being paid as dividends. If the expenses are used in the growth of the fund, that is a positive sign. Else you can expect the fund to be downgraded or upgraded by the credit rating agencies, depending on how the credit rating agencies see the expenses of the fund and other factors. Generally comparison should be done with funds invested in the same sectors, same distribution of assets so that you have a homogeneous comparison to make. Else it would be unwise to compare between a fund invested in oil companies and other in computers. Yes the economy is inter twined, but that is not how a comparison should be done.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "1a9e38527d7e1f9e8e0d36c2cc010dfc", "text": "\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd36cc84ea10cfdc1920099d015b5085", "text": "Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa0ef326df4465ff87ce2aea2d17493a", "text": "What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "352ae26769c4ba7b9868bfb94afe8813", "text": "\"You absolutely should consider expenses. Why do they matter when the \"\"sticker price\"\" already includes them? Because you can be much more certain about what the expense ratio will be in the future than you can about what the fund performance will be in the future. The \"\"sticker price\"\" mixes generalized economic growth (i.e., gains you could have gotten from other funds) with gains specific to the fund, but the expense ratio is completely fund-specific. In other words, when looking at the \"\"sticker price\"\" performance of a fund, it's difficult to determine how that performance will extend into the future. But the expense ratio will definitely carry into the future. It is rare for funds to drastically change their expense ratios, but common for funds to change their performance. Suppose you find a fund that has returned a net of 8% over some time period and has a 1% expense ratio, and another fund that has returned a net of 10% but has a 2% expense ratio. So the first fund returned 9%-1% = 8% and the second returned 12%-2%=10%. There are decent odds that, over some future time period, the first fund will return 10%-1%=9% while the second fund will return 10%-2%=8%. In order for the second fund to be better than the first, it has to reliably outperform it by 1%; this is harder than it may sound. Simply put, there is a lot of \"\"noise\"\" in the fund performance, but the expense ratio is \"\"all signal\"\". Of course, if you find a fund that will reliably return 20% after expenses of 3%, it would probably make sense to choose that over one that returns 10% after expenses of 1%. But \"\"will reliably return\"\" is not the same as \"\"has returned over the past N years\"\", and the difference between the two phrases becomes greater and greater the smaller N is. When you find a fund that seems to have performed staggeringly well over some time period, you should be cautious; there is a good chance that the future holds some regression to the mean, and the fund will not continue to be so stellar. You may want to take a look at this question which asked about Morningstar fund ratings, which are essentially a measure of past performance. My answer references a study done by Morningstar comparing its own star ratings vs. fund expenses as a predictor of overall results. I'll repeat here the take-home message: How often did it pay to heed expense ratios? Every time. How often did it pay to heed the star rating? Most of the time, with a few exceptions. How often did the star rating beat expenses as a predictor? Slightly less than half the time, taking into account funds that expired during the time period. In other words, Morningstar's own study showed that its own star ratings (that is, past fund performance) are not as good at predicting success as simply looking at the expense ratios of the funds.\"", "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": "51c2e3fcc43fda52d2e151179f2922f5", "text": "\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07ff8f6bdf26e89b18a978a60f4e1929", "text": "\"Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true. Roughly, the mathematical analogue of \"\"higher risk and higher reward\"\" is \"\"higher standard deviation and higher mean\"\". In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean). Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart - from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns. With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on. Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out. If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again. Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age. What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5e5dbb140511e66e895c62be614c8e3", "text": "\"If you want the answer from the horse's mouth, go to the website of the ETF or mutual find, and the expense ratio will be listed there, both on the \"\"Important Information\"\" part of the front page, as well as in the .pdf file that you click on to download the Prospectus. Oh wait, you don't want to go the fund's website at all, just to a query site where you type in something like VFINX. hit SEARCH, and out pops the expense ratio for the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund? Well, have you considered MorningStar?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "624d64de9d677b3001fe738a4e116cac", "text": "\"One other thing to consider, particularly with Vanguard, is the total dollar amount available. Vanguard has \"\"Admiralty\"\" shares of funds which offer lower expense ratios, around 15-20% lower, but require a fairly large investment in each fund (often 10k) to earn the discounted rate. It is a tradeoff between slightly lower expense ratios and possibly a somewhat less diverse holding if you are relatively early in your savings and only have say 20-30k (which would mean 2 or 3 Admiralty share funds only).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a286b75a29218a3fd4c1ff216ddc054a", "text": "Annual-report expense ratios reflect the actual fees charged during a particular fiscal year. Prospectus Expense Ratio (net) shows expenses the fund company anticipates will actually be borne by the fund's shareholders in the upcoming fiscal year less any expense waivers, offsets or reimbursements. Prospectus Gross Expense Ratio is the percentage of fund assets used to pay for operating expenses and management fees, including 12b-1 fees, administrative fees, and all other asset-based costs incurred by the fund, except brokerage costs. Fund expenses are reflected in the fund's NAV. Sales charges are not included in the expense ratio. All of these ratios are gathered from a fund's prospectus.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fd4eac4a4af6f69fb8949b1a94261c8", "text": "Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab80bacac82aee1f35b9de381d028a40", "text": "The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2d54102c2d480f7adc795284fb66e01", "text": "So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e87cf009a427c288022fcb9eaf253bed", "text": "You are comparing a risk-free cost with a risky return. If you can tolerate that level of risk (the ups and downs of the investment) for the chance that you'll come out ahead in the long-run, then sure, you could do that. So the parameters to your equation would be: If you assume that the risky returns are normally distributed, then you can use normal probability tables to determine what risk level you can tolerate. To put some real numbers to it, take the average S&P 500 return of 10% and standard deviation of 18%. Using standard normal functions, we can calculate the probability that you earn more than various interest rates: so even with a low 3% interest rate, there's roughly a 1 in 3 chance that you'll actually be worse off (the gains on your investments will be less than the interest you pay). In any case there's a 3 in 10 chance that your investments will lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b08e15959e01191e6cf76c05c4b50af0", "text": "The problem you'll have is that premium income is a vague term so you have to figure out what they mean by a) premium and b) income. Gross or net of reinsurance and acquisition costs? Written or earned basis? Combined ratios are also a pig, very commonly they are loss ratio + expense ratio --- but of course loss ratio is losses incurred / premium earned while expense ratio is expenses paid / premium written so it's a self-inconsistent measure. And then there's investment income, and then there's reserve releases...", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
0e0c488c2492bacd13d83f0123d0e6e1
How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?
[ { "docid": "f1929e88f0214dc218452d12e55a4339", "text": "\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"", "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": "ba635a0e2132b69b629c4d6de7a2b27b", "text": "Bond prices move inversely to their yields. So when you sell bonds and create a supply side deluge, bond prices will fall. Since bond prices are falling, yields go up. (The dollar amount that the bond pays out is the same. It's simply that since the bond price has fallen, that dollar amount paid out expressed in percentage terms of the bond price has risen).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96cec02c99cd390afdf4af6154c169c1", "text": "\"So after you've learned about bonds, you might find yourself learning about interest rates. You might, in fact, discover that there's no such thing as a \"\"correct\"\" interest rate, or even a true \"\"market\"\" interest rate. PS We already had the housing bubble. It has come, and gone. What *new* bubble are you referring to?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "732d7e94a01d2d9f4a5574b742e151da", "text": "Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates. This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates. If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year. Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount. The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "4c020f3c37abccf66e1d71bf9f09dc55", "text": "what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand: Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates: On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b67743cb4e5d07b3227567e526be37de", "text": "\"The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate. The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine. On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost \"\"serious\"\" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is \"\"free.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e4bbd3e7d72c51119d1690928f018d4", "text": "\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\"\"convenience yield\"\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e538c046c14ab86ba88dc26048ac046", "text": "\"What could happen to bonds such as these because of Detroit filing for bankruptcy? Depending on how the courts process Detroit's situation, there could be that some bonds become worthless since they are so low and the city can't pay anything on those low priority debts. Others may get pennies on the dollar. There could also be the case that some bailout comes along that makes the bonds good though I'd say that is a long shot at this point. Are these bonds done for, or will bondholders receive interest payments and eventual payment? I wouldn't suspect that they are done for in the sense of being completely worthless though at the same time, I'd be very careful about buying any of them given that they are likely to be changed a great deal. Could these bonds tend to rise over time after the bankruptcy? Yes, it is possible. If there was some kind of federal or state bailout that is done, the bonds could rise. However, that is one heck of an \"\"if\"\" as you'd need to have someone come to guarantee the bonds in a sense. What similar situations from the past might support this idea? Not that many as this is the biggest municipal bankruptcy ever, but here are a few links that may be useful as a starting point, though keep in mind Detroit's scale is part of the story as it is such a big amount being defaulted:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cf9c7613a8b1d0fd44de8be4f8b61b0", "text": "Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d5f5f1829782f7f48ca417c3f0e1b75", "text": "Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds? Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall. Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccaa2d226cb5adbec4f42d377dedfa7a", "text": "Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "099a0afe44a9775482bc038a44439a33", "text": "\"Beyond the yield/price relationship, a good intuitive way to understand it is just this: these people control a substantial amount of money that could be essentially loaned to governments. If they feel a particular policy is likely to lead to inflation or default, they may decide not to loan that country any more money. All else being equal, with a smaller supply of possible borrowers, the country will have to pay higher interest to fund a particular amount of debt. Furthermore they may loudly publicly announce that they will no longer lend to that country, in which case other participants may be persuaded that they too should no longer lend at the going rate. What's more, this is somewhat self-fulfilling: as rates go up, the country will spend more money servicing its debt, and will in fact become a worse risk. So I think the thing that gives them their \"\"vigilante\"\" nature is that governments worry they will round up a posse and things will run away. As far as actual incentives, I would welcome more information but I think the main bond vigilante case is that they are basically long on the country but want it to tighten up its policy so their existing holdings don't decline.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "312d9c813916aa05b71e3fdeac51bd57", "text": "\"Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - \"\"growing economy\"\" High growth and high inflation - \"\"overheating economy\"\" Low growth and high inflation - \"\"stagflation\"\" Low growth and low inflation - \"\"recession\"\" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65ee8fe1e4d415e65ad72de915f56166", "text": "I would also like to have this discussed, alongside the issue that the US has gone into some type of [recession](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/US_Treasuries_to_Federal_Funds_Rate.png) roughly every ten year. So with the prospect of a possible recession with a close to 0% cash rate looming, what tools will the FED employ to keep Banks borrowing while maintaining inflation rates?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b3288d5c52f3108024698a072fca939", "text": "Possibly but not necessarily, though that can happen if one looks at the US interest rates in the late 1970s which did end with really high rates in the early 1980s. Generally interest rates are raised when inflation picks up as a way to bring down inflation.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
50a9380ea8fcf639305b6d468b046802
Teaching school kids about money - what are the real life examples of math, budgeting, finance?
[ { "docid": "0977c3b9eb3b8c0cd2266c36a40159c8", "text": "\"I am a numbers guy, the math is great. Instead of \"\"jane was twice her son's age when he married, and is now 1.5 times his age.....\"\" questions in math class, I think the math problems should mostly have dollar/pound signs in front of them. In general, I like the idea of relating to the kids' situations as much as possible. When my daughter (14) makes a purchase, I'd ask her to be aware of how many hours she had to work to make the money she plans to spend. Was it worth 4 hours babysitting to buy an iPad case? Was it worth 2 to buy lunch that we could have made you at home? (Note, the 'convert price to hours worked' is a concept that works great when teaching budgeting to anyone, not just kids.) The math of tax and discounts for comparison shopping works great as well so long as they understand value. A $400 sweatshirt at 50% off isn't really a bargain, in my opinion. Next, the math of balancing a checkbook should be high on the list. Accounting for the checks that didn't clear but are outstanding is beyond many people, amazing enough. For the sport fan, there are unlimited math problem one can create for game scores, stats for the season, etc. Young boys who will fall asleep during a stats class will pay attention if instead of abstract numbers, you add 'goals' 'home runs' etc, after the numbers. (Note - this question is probably outside the scope of the board, no right or wrong answer. But I love it as a question in general, and if not here, I hope it finds a good home.)\"", "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": "df4a0faa381737651673d571cb03dcf9", "text": "\"My education on this topic at this age range was a little more free-form. We were given a weeklong project in the 6th grade, which I remember pretty clearly: Fast forward 6 years (we were 12). You are about to be kicked out of your parents' house with the clothes on your back, $1,000 cash in your pocket, your high school diploma, and a \"\"best of luck\"\" from your parents. That's it. Your mission is to not be homeless, starving and still wearing only the clothes on your back in 3 months. To do this, you will find an apartment, a job (you must meet the qualifications fresh out of high school with only your diploma; no college, no experience), and a means of transportation. Then, you'll build a budget that includes your rent, estimated utilities, gasoline (calculated based on today's prices, best-guess fuel mileage of the car, and 250% of the best-guess one-way distance between home and job), food (complete nutrition is not a must, but 2000cal/day is), toiletries, clothing, and anything else you want or need to spend your paycheck or nest egg on. Remember that the laundromat isn't free, and neither is buying the washer/dryer yourself. Remember most apartments aren't furnished but do have kitchen appliances, and you can't say you found anything on the side of the road. The end product of your work will be a narrative report of the first month of your new life, a budget for the full 3 months, plus a \"\"continuing\"\" budget for a typical month thereafter to prove you're not just lasting out the 3 months, and all supporting evidence for your numbers, from newspaper clippings to in-store mailers (the Internet and e-commerce were just catching on at the time, Craigslist and eBay didn't exist yet, and not everyone had home Internet to begin with). Extra Credit: Make your budget work with all applicable income and sales taxes. Extra Extra Credit: Have more than your original $1000 in the bank at the end of the 3 months, after the taxes in the Extra Credit. This is a pretty serious project for a 12-year-old. Not only were we looking through the classified ads and deciphering all the common abbreviations, we were were taking trips to the grocery store with shopping lists, the local Wal-Mart or Target, the mall, even Goodwill. Some students had photos of their local gas station's prices, to which someone pointed out that their new apartment would be on the other side of town where gas was more expensive (smart kid). Some students just couldn't make it work (usually the mistakes were to be expected of middle-class middle-schoolers, like finding a job babysitting and stretching that out full-time, only working one job, buying everything new from clothes to furniture, thinking you absolutely need convenience items you can do without, and/or trying to buy the same upscale car your dad takes to work), though most students were able to provide at least a plausible before-tax budget. A few made the extra credit work, which was a lot of extra credit, because not only were you filling out a 1040EZ for your estimated income taxes, you were also figuring FICA and Social Security taxes which even some adults don't know the rates for, and remember, no Internet. Given that the extra-extra credit required you to come out ahead after taxes (good luck), I can't remember that anyone got that far. The meta-lesson that we all learned? Life without a college education is rough.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "a65efd5afe866ce7d2d86bb59793098c", "text": "\"In the UK there is a School Rewards System used in many schools to teach kids and teens about finance and economy. In the UK there is a framework for schools called \"\"Every Child Matters\"\" in which ‘achieving economic well-being’ is an important element. I think is important to offer to offer a real-life vehicle for financial learning beyond the theory.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f4270d67a6601b909ed315a269981d3", "text": "Hey thank you so much for the reply! So the interview is a late stage one - I've gotten past the concepts and honestly the role *shouldn't* be that heavy on the finance side ...what I'm looking at now is actually having to mock up a financial forecast in a real estate development scenario. I'm getting the case in advance and have to prepare a presentation. So right now, I really need the ABCs of forecasting specifically. But I'm definitely checking out your recommendations!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1407a11a1bfd45195cc54d12195ad9d1", "text": "\"In that example, \"\"creating money\"\" could be used interchangeably with \"\"making promises\"\". There's no inflation, and no problem, so long as everyone keeps their promises. Which sounds like a horrifying thing to say about the foundations of the economy, but the remarkable thing is that people mostly do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05f9fb1d45a1fba06e958b27c614ebd", "text": "As asked previous in the week, there is a big difference between budgeting and expense tracking. Using software, like GNUCash, allows one to track their spending. A budget is a plan, the tracking is what actually happened. I do not track expenses, although I do budget. For me, hitting financial goals is good enough of a track, without investing the time and energy into tracking every penny. One could easily criticize my method, as how can you have a good plan without continuous feedback? For me it is an example of the 80/20 principle. If I put in 20% effort into making and sticking to a budget, I will obtain 80% of the financial success that a person who devotes 100% effort into budgeting and tracking. A person with the same income and life events, who budgets and tracks, will likely be more successful that I, however, not overwhelmingly so. For me time is better spent on other endeavors. You seem to have this attitude as well, but those that do track have it as part of their path to financial success and probably view us as somewhat foolish. This is another example how personal finance is more about behavior than math.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b756983b590de33a66abf890947706d", "text": "As a 20 year old who has just started earning enough to save, I suggest showing them the different types of lifestyles they could live in the future if they started saving now versus what their life would be like if they didn't save at all. Try showing them actual dollar values as well so it's not just an arbitrary idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b136684aff859e57a18347bea96e2291", "text": "Can anyone recommend a good textbook for a first course in finance? I'm not studying it, if it's relevant--I'm just a guy who wants a better understanding of the financial sector. I don't know anything anout finance outside a few basic concepts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac326aca2189c78f3ed3457661c6f291", "text": "My daughter is two, and she has a piggy bank that regularly dines on my pocket change. When that bank is worth $100 or so I will make it a regular high yield savings account. Then I will either setup a regular $10/month transfer into it, or something depending on what we can afford. My plan is then to offer my kid an allowance when she can understand the concept of money. My clever idea is I will offer her a savings plan with the Bank of Daddy. If she lets me keep her allowance for the week, I will give her double the amount plus a percentage the next week. If she does it she will soon see the magic of saving money and how banks pay your for the privilege. I don't know when I will give her access to the savings account with actual cash. I will show it to her, and review it with her so she can track her money, but I need to know that she has some restraint before I open the gates to her.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9e7d3106f9e19ea20ac6488b0aab00f", "text": "Here's a very good series of classroom lectures by Robert Schiller, one of America's top economists and a prof at Yale: http://www.youtube.com/user/YaleCourses#g/c/8F7E2591EE283A2E This should give you some general insight into basic principles of finance and give you a framework to learn more later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a43caccb4e26c98f5a98bd0ff63cf78", "text": "Until they're old enough to be legally responsible for their own credit, the only thing you can really do is show them by example how to manage money and credit in your own finances. Teach them budgeting, immerse them in understanding how credit and financing work, and teach them smart ways to make their money work for them. When they're teenagers, you could potentially approach small banks or credit unions about ways to perhaps co-sign loans for them and let them make payments to learn good habits for managing their responsibilities, but that's not always easy either. It won't do anything for their credit, but having the responsibility of coming in to make payments might instill good habits and help their self-esteem at the same time. You have great intentions, but as has been pointed out here already, from a legal standpoint there's not much you can do. All you can do is prepare them for the day when they are on their own and can enter into credit agreements. Kids going to college get into real trouble with credit because cards are handed out like candy to them by the banks, so teaching them money management skills is invaluable and something you can do now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17972f2341e3a49ab0ea1e28a96c6c01", "text": "I’d suggest going over to Khan Academy. It’s basically a free school with really helpful videos. There are quizzes you can do and forums for each subject. My advice would be to starts the personal finance section because most things build from there and it’ll help you more with real life finance. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5eb73a9199fa4cc6976f6a504dabdcb", "text": "\"Anything by Frank Fabozzi - the de facto authority on financial education. Most of the stuff will be textbook ($$$) so get ready for sticker shock. Hopefully you can find a used copy of something. Quick search on Amazon yielded \"\"The Basics of Finance\"\" for about $150.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cda418d37f637ca634dd67e846e44ef", "text": "We are a pretty average (professional, used to be fully two-income) family. I have gone part-time (plus a total career change) to be more involved at home - that's minus 50K from our family budget a year. Montessori for the younger one is - 10K. Violin (-5K) and piano (-5K) lessons for each kid... summer science camps... summer golf/tennis plus equipment... dance/sports all year round are around 10K too. We are looking at an 80K hole in our budget (compared to what we could have had). Plus by now I would have been probably more advanced in my previous career had I stayed there, so the hole is potentially even greater.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61dd0f7406c13e16a3b9da31c4672e53", "text": "Hi, I'm going to be a social studies teacher and will have to introduce students to economics. I am saving your post for the future because it is an amazingly well crafted and engaging lesson.. the village analogy can even be used for group enactment. Thanks so much for this!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f01d40e1a2a04d326b3dfd50a204d84", "text": "Frankly, I think all the higher maths in finance is mental masturbation. EDIT: wht all the down votes? I've made my money by trading against the PhDs in European investment banks who actually and innocently believe their models represent the real world. Their models work when they work. I love trading against the combination of arrogance and faux intellectualism. Folks, read Fooled by Randomness or Black Swan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0da09d5f659beffb49747422af4eb306", "text": "All value given to products is subjective and is different from person to person. It can also vary for the same person from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour as a person analyzes different products and prices to determine which imparts the most value to him or her at a given point in time. In regards to losing money in your investment accounts. This reminds of a book I read on Jesse Livermore. Jesse was a famous stock broker who made millions (in the 1920's so he would be a billionaire in today's money) in the stock market multiple times. Jesse felt like you - he felt like after a while the losses on paper did not seem to concern him as much as he thought it should. He thought it was due to the investment accounts being simply being numbers on papers and not cold, hard cash. So what did Jesse do to remove the abstract nature of investment accounts? From here: Livermore always sold out all his positions at the end of every year and had the cash deposited in his account at the Chase Manhattan Bank. Then he would arrange with the bank to have the money, in cash, in the bank’s vault in chests. “There was a desk, a chair, a cot and an easy chair in the middle of the cash.” On the occasion described in 1923, there was $50 million in cash. In the corner was a fridge with food, enough for a few days. There was lighting installed. Then, like Scrooge McDuck, Livermore would have himself locked in the vault with his cash. He would stay a couple of days and “review his year from every aspect.” After his stay was over, he would fill his pockets with cash and go on a shopping spree. He would also take a vacation and not re-enter the market until February. But unlike Scrooge McDuck, this was not the act of a miser, explains Smitten. Livermore lived a world of paper transactions all year long. He believed that “by the end of the year he had lost his perception of what the paper slips really represented, cash money and ultimately power.” He “needed to touch the money and feel the power of cash.” It made him re-appraise his stock and commodity positions. Imagine the $60,000 from your investment account sitting on your kitchen table. Imagine seeing $1,000 dumped into the trash can one day. I know I would appreciate the money much more seeing that happen.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
e347cf0b35befea83602cd7e810684bb
Events that cause major movement in forex?
[ { "docid": "4648dfc15b0c956e6a3a09c8f7728c39", "text": "Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a829b0cd8b0cae7deedf77c992b58af3", "text": "It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04d3f10147795efaba835bb24ae83636", "text": "Trading Speeches can be difficult, 1 comment can be bullish then next phrase bearish. However language algorithms can process the tone of the entire message before you can read the first word or have even finished downloading the text of the statement. The biggest news is the 1st Friday of the month, the non-farm payrolls out of the USA. You used to be able to get the news before the price moved, but high-frequency algos changed all that, essentially the exchanges get quote stuffed, so good luck unless you are using a bucketshop. Better to wait for a pull back from the initial reaction if the numbers are good, otherwise you will get a fill at the peak. If the numbers are a big deviation from expectations then you can just jump in. Back in 2006 the Bank of England raised interest rates when it wasn't expected and the GBPUSD flew 500 pips. This Forex calendar has charts of every news release, so you can see what to expected based on what has happened in the past with a certain bit of economic news. http://www.fasteconomicnews.com/fx_calendar.aspx", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45724a41c9c9b9b669681753c6a5cf5e", "text": "Look for unsustainable policies and actions by policy makers, both before and possibly during, when looking at the ForEx markets. Consider some examples: Each of those events could be seen in the growing unsustainability of local policies. ForEx markets and local policies can appear to stay on an unsustainable path for a long time, but equilibrium will force itself on everything in the long run. In two of the above cases, the initial response wasn't enough to offset the mess, and more and more intervention had to be done, only making matters worse. When you know how unsustainable policies are and how big the corrections need to be, you can quickly ascertain whether an action by policy makers will be enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20c32a3cf62ace7633294b14aec72f97", "text": "Sometimes the market has to be left alone. Too much interference of the policy makers to stabilize the falling market can actually result in a major crisis. Every change stabilises after sometime and it is also applicable in the Forex trading market. So, the eager investors should learn to have some patience and wait for the market to stabilise itself rather than make random predictions on the policies released by policy makers", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ca7c24dc646716a903295d51bf7fa16", "text": "currency's central bank or treasury/finance department speeches that can announce a significant change in policy. That includes: Particularly when it is a high level figure within the department such as the President or Prime Minister making the announcement. Macroeconomic stats: GeoPolitical considerations, such as: Economic calendars, such as ForexFactory and MyFxBook track planned economic news releases. Obviously, a coup d'etat or war declaration may not be well known in advance.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9", "text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fa4236619f0c3895073c76edb5eb278", "text": "The root cause can be said to always be a crisis in confidence. It may be due to a very real event. However, confidence is what pushes the markets up and worries are what bring them down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e6e328ddefd77d0000e46e8212a7af", "text": "To answer your original question: There is proof out there. Here is a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that might be worth a read. It has a lot of references to other publications that might help answer your question(s) about TA. You can probably read the whole article then research some of the other ones listed there to come up with a conclusion. Below are some excerpts: Abstract: This article introduces the subject of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market, with emphasis on its importance for questions of market efficiency. “Technicians” view their craft, the study of price patterns, as exploiting traders’ psychological regularities. The literature on technical analysis has established that simple technical trading rules on dollar exchange rates provided 15 years of positive, risk-adjusted returns during the 1970s and 80s before those returns were extinguished. More recently, more complex and less studied rules have produced more modest returns for a similar length of time. Conventional explanations that rely on risk adjustment and/or central bank intervention do not plausibly justify the observed excess returns from following simple technical trading rules. Psychological biases, however, could contribute to the profitability of these rules. We view the observed pattern of excess returns to technical trading rules as being consistent with an adaptive markets view of the world. and The widespread use of technical analysis in foreign exchange (and other) markets is puzzling because it implies that either traders are irrationally making decisions on useless information or that past prices contain useful information for trading. The latter possibility would contradict the “efficient markets hypothesis,” which holds that no trading strategy should be able to generate unusual profits on publicly available information—such as past prices—except by bearing unusual risk. And the observed level of risk-adjusted profitability measures market (in)efficiency. Therefore much research effort has been directed toward determining whether technical analysis is indeed profitable or not. One of the earliest studies, by Fama and Blume (1966), found no evidence that a particular class of TTRs could earn abnormal profits in the stock market. However, more recent research by Brock, Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992) and Sullivan, Timmermann an d White (1999) has provided contrary evidence. And many studies of the foreign exchange market have found evidence that TTRs can generate persistent profits (Poole 6 (1967), Dooley and Shafer (1984), Sweeney (1986), Levich and Thomas (1993), Neely, Weller and Dittmar (1997), Gençay (1999), Lee, Gleason and Mathur (2001) and Martin (2001)).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8290de06be4d6255f61a606db30404dd", "text": "\"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc21709e61f35e1dabf585879d691d0b", "text": "Contrary to Muro's answer which strangely shows a graph of the Fed's balance sheet and not the money supply, the supply of US dollars has never doubled in a few days. This graph from Wikipedia shows M2, which is the wider measure of money supply, to have doubled over approximately 10 years, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg The answer to whether gold has a higher chance of experiencing big devaluation has to do with forces outside anyone's control, if a big new mine of gold is discovered that could affect prices, but also if the economy turns around it could lead investors to pull out of gold and back into the stock markets. The USD, on the other hand, is under control of the policy makers at the Fed who have a dual mandate to keep inflation and unemployment low. The Fed seems to have gotten better over the last 30 years at controlling inflation and the dollar has not experienced big inflation since the 70s. Inflation, as measured by Core CPI, has been maintained at less than 4% for the last 20 years and is currently coming off record low levels below 1%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84dc6e6ef5dad182fafdbc6f7c910579", "text": "\"According to Soros in \"\"The Alchemy of Finance\"\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0021fa4d97554c8c2732a3a0c6e053a8", "text": "very interesting.. I deal with speculation all day every day, I wish there was a dependable method to determine what actually happens in these possibly nefarious and possibly innocent events. I believe that Sadam Hussain and Momar Quadafi were deposed/eliminated because they both traded oil for currencies other than dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53a33eed609d2c59d67a43cc281aea4f", "text": "There are various indexes on the stock market that track the currencies. Though it is different than Forex (probably less leverage), you may be able to get the effects you're looking for. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but looked some into FXE, to trade the Euro debt crisis. Here's an article on Forex, putting FXE down (obviously a biased view, but perhaps will give you a starting point for comparison, should you want to trade something specific, like the current euro/dollar situation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a27a2131386bb326d295d3241415a143", "text": "If I knew a surefire way to make money in FOREX (or any market for that matter) I would not be sharing it with you. If you find an indicator that makes sense to you and you think you can make money, use it. For what it's worth, I think technical analysis is nonsense. If you're just now wading in to the FOREX markets because of the Brexit vote I suggest you set up a play-money account first. The contracts and trades can be complicated, losses can be very large and you can lose big -- quickly. I suspect FOREX brokers have been laughing to the bank the last couple weeks with all the guppies jumping in to play with the sharks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f24297fb61becba24d76ac71c8ec800e", "text": "\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d122ee87f06c9c0fb33698d8369750f", "text": "\"Relative changes in rates are significant. Why? Exchange rates encourage cross-border trade. For example, I live in an area that is now popular with Canadian tourists, mostly due to the favorable exchange rates. Changes in exchange rates between trading partners can affect trade balance as well. The US \"\"strong dollar\"\" policy made US exports expensive and imports cheaper, which encouraged more imports.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af6fc06890c6a15e9c4c5206ac646982", "text": "Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the gold price (Source). 3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of reasons: 4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices. One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold, possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15% of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source) (Source of above graphs)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f91f4a2c1fefc9609804c9797e792abd", "text": "The British didn't choose to stay away, they were forced out (as was Sweden) by their fucked up policies and being unable to defend their peg against the (trading only at the time) euro currency. They lost a fuckload in the process and when it became apparent that those that understand market arbitrage wouldn't let up (what killed Mexico/Argentia Peso as well), they backed out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e28f9eea5648bd04f0d3a9cd12740871", "text": "I don't think the two are particularly linked. While Brick is right in that the price of oil is denominated in dollars, I don't think that's responsible for most of the movement here. Oil has been weak for intrinsic reasons related to oil: supply/demand imbalance, largely. (Oil also was way over-priced back when it was > $100 a barrel; a lot of that was due to worries about instability in the Middle East.) The dollar has been strong for other, separate intrinsic reasons. The American economy has had a stronger rebound than Europe or Asia; while we were hit hard in the 2008 recession, we rebounded pretty quickly from a whole-economy point of view (we still have a lot of weaknesses in terms of long-term unemployment, but that doesn't seem to be hurting our productivity much). Pick another time period, and you won't necessarily see the same matching path (and I would even say that those paths don't match particularly well). Marketwatch covered this for example; other sites show similar things. There is a weak correlation, but only in the short term, or for specific reasons.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80acffb45c8498b0f661c11609063965", "text": "\"Paying the mortgage down is no different than investing in a long term taxable fixed instrument. In this economy, 4.7% isn't bad, but longer term, the stock market should return higher. When you have the kid(s), is your wife planing to work? If not, I'd first suggest going pre-tax on the IRAs, and when she's not working, convert to Roth. I'd advise against starting the 529 accounts until your child(ren) is actually born. As far as managed funds are concerned, I hear \"\"expenses.\"\" Why not learn about lower cost funds, index mutual funds or ETFs? I'd not do too much different aside from this, until the kids are born.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
1efae8affb05451ea84ae8ae8f64db48
Effect of country default on house prices?
[ { "docid": "1e758473b1265a4258993587b6d485ba", "text": "It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power. In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item. If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere. It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay. Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7a96cdfac72aa243a64d2ba596c51a3", "text": "Some of the factors that will act on house prices are: There will likely be a recession in that country, which will lower incomes and probably lower housing prices. It will likely be harder to get credit in that country so that too will increase demand and depress demand for housing (cf the USA in 2010.) If Greece leaves the Euro, that will possibly depress future economic growth, through decreased trade and investment, and possibly decreased transfer payments. Eventually the budget will need to come back into balanced which also is likely to push down house prices. In some European countries (most famously Spain) there's been a lot of speculative building which is likely to hang over the market. Both countries have governance and mandate problems, and who knows how long or how much turmoil it will take to sort that out. Some of these factors may already be priced in, and perhaps prices are already near what will turn out to be the low. In the Euro zone you have the nearly unprecedented situation of the countries being very strongly tied into another currency, so the typical exchange-rate movements that played out in Argentina cannot act here. A lot will depend on whether the countries are bailed out, or leave the Euro (and if so how), etc. Typically inflation has been a knock-on effect of the exchange rate moves so it's hard to see if that will happen in Greece. Looking back from 2031, buying in southern Europe in 2011 may turn out to be a good investment. But I don't think you could reasonably call it a safe defensive investment.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "0da4ce624e5475b510e50627b98ae7a5", "text": "\"Yes, except many, many Icelanders still owe debt on assets they purchased in krona (the Icelandic dollar) before it collapsed. Now many are stuck with homes, vehicles, etc. on which they owe twice the underlying value. You'll often see this referred to as \"\"private debt overhang\"\" in financial news articles, and it is not reported on nearly enough. Just letting the banks fail doesn't unwind all of the ridiculous currency speculation that took place in Iceland. They may be on their way to recovery...eventually...but they're still in terrible shape in the short term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f69b9b3b61d001e92118515fb873e53", "text": "gnasher729's answer is fundamentally correct and deserves the checkmark, but I'd like to give an economic explanation for how this economically functions. The key point from gnasher729's answer's that the interest rate is 49.9% for one company. While this may be much higher than the equilibrium rate, the true market interest rate, it is not completely unreasonable because of the risk. For credit to be continually produced, default risk must be compensated because this is a cost to the lender. Most are not in business to lose money, so making loans to borrowers that default 40% of the time would make this interest rate reasonable. For UK citizens, this would not be such a problem because the lender can usually pursue the borrower for the balance, but if the borrower can disavow the loan and leave the legal reach of the UK creditors, the collection rate is 0%. The guarantee by the foreign persons not present in the UK is incidental and probably more of a regulatory requirement since the inability to collect from them is just as unlikely. One should always look for the lowest price with at least minimum quality when shopping for anything, but you are right to be apprehensive legally. Read every line and be sure that you yourself understand every clause before signing. If alternative cheaper financing is available, it is probably superior.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d48578895b425cd15eff32ed8cc1d594", "text": "\"This is a hard question to answer. Government debt and mortgages are loosely related. Banks typically use yields on government bonds to determine mortgage interest rates. The banks must be able to get higher rates from the mortgage otherwise they would buy government bonds. Your question mentions default so I'm assuming a country has reneged on its promise to pay either the principal or interest on government bonds. The main thing to consider is \"\"Who does not get their money?\"\". In other words, who does the government decide not to pay. This is the important part. The government will have some money so they could pay some bond holders. They must decide who to shaft. For example, let's look at who holds Greek government debt. Around 70% of Greek government debt is held outside Greece. See table below. The Greek government could decide to default only on the debt to foreign holders. In that case the banks in France and Switzerland would take the loss on their bonds. This could cause severe problems in France and Switzerland depending on the percentage of Greek bonds that make up the banks' assets. Greek banks would still face losses, however, since the price of their Greek bond holdings would drop sharply when the government defaults. Interestingly, the losses for the Greek banks may be smaller than the losses faced by the French and Swiss banks. This is usually the favored option chosen by government since the French and Swiss don't vote in Greece. Yields on Greek government bonds would rise dramatically. If your Greek mortgage is an adjustable rate mortgage then you could see some big adjustments upward. If you live in France or Switzerland then the bank that owns your mortgage may go under if Greece defaults. During liquidation the bank will sell their assets which includes mortgages and you will probably not notice any difference in your mortgage. As I stated earlier: this is a hard question to answer since the two financial instruments involved (bonds and mortgages) are similar but may or may not be related.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbf7092d961bc1cbea11e5406ac99cc1", "text": "Keep in mind that the only portion of the MBS that was rated AAA was the most senior tranche. It achieved this rating due to the buffer to principal losses provided by the equity and mezzanine tranches. So for the principal to be at risk for the AAA senior tranche, 10% of the mortgages in the pool would have to default. Since this number was way higher than historical default rates - it seemed safe. Obviously looking back we know that risk management underestimated the effect that lowered lending standards would have on the default rates (if they did project a rise in default rates, they did not project a large enough rise). As well, while the MBS is exposed to systemic risk - as happened, when the entire country was affected by the collapse - they were packaged to avoid other risks. For example, the pool would spread out mortgages across the country and other various factors would be hedged so that if a natural disaster hits state X and everyone defaults on their mortgage, you are only losing a small part of the underlying. I assume (hope) that at some point the quantitative analysis people in risk management at the major investment banks realized that the default rates would rise given the lower lending standards being employed - but chose to ignore it. They chose to ignore it because investors still wanted to buy it, and the banks make money by collecting fees on issuing securities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8cc99f247ccc6fa76d1139088907572", "text": "The value of debt is that it allows you to profit from the return of equity beyond the amount of actual net equity you own. Of course, this only works if the cost of borrowing is less than your return on equity. Market timing matters a great deal but isn't accounted for in this view. For my answer I would like to hand-wave away market timing considerations. One plausible justification is that you could default on your current home and then immediately go buy one of equal value. If you buy a new home of a lesser value (due to lack of funds) and then prices appreciate, then you missed some opportunity cost but probably not $100k worth of it. Moving on, here are some helpful assumptions I'll make. I'll ignore performance of your portfolio after retirement and only seek to optimize F, which will be your net worth upon retirement. In either case, your current net worth is earning the R2 rate. We can convert this for both your current net worth and future savings using conversion formulas. Present to future value F = P (1+R2)^x Annual to future value F = S ( (1+R2)^x - 1 ) / R2 Adding these together is sufficient to obtain F in the case that you have no borrowing power. The case where you do not default and maintain your credit score is different due to an initial $100k penalty and the amortized value of borrowing power. In a completely theoretical sense, you get an effective (R2-R1) yield on all borrowed money. The future value will be the following: F = A1 (1+R2-R1)^x One step is missing, however, which is to convert this value (the value of having a good credit score) into present value to compare to value of your defaulting. P of borrowing power = F / (1+R2)^x = A1 { (1+R2-R1)/(1+R2) }^x Now, let's put some specific values in. Say that you can borrow $300k with your good credit history and this applies for the next 25 years, after which you retire. The borrowing rate is 7% and the time-value of money to you is 10%. I would then calculate: P of borrowing power = $58 k < $100 k This indicates that it would be more economical to default. Of course, some people might point out that it will be removed from your record after 7 years. If you plug 7 years instead of 25 years into the equation, almost no assumptions about rates will lead to the option of keeping your house being preferable. So in a nutshell, the value of your credit is probably less than $100k in a purely mathematical sense. But there are other factors too. If you don't have that borrowing ability maybe you wouldn't be able to borrow money to start the business of your dreams. If you are a rock star entrepreneur, then time-value of money to you could be 1,000% yield, sure, then maybe you could make the above numbers work (to favor keeping the house). I've also neglected ethics. As other people point out, it would be like stealing from the bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9", "text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d7889c564e13973982ade3a7679300e", "text": "What about the debt attached to more recently purchased properties, purchased at the price before the market gets flooded with baby-boomer homes? I'm not an expert in real estate finance, but it sounds like if that downward pressure on prices isn't slight, financial institutions will be taking that risk for anyone who defaults on a mortgage after their property loses a substantial amount of its value. It seems like immigration could play an important role in offsetting this and keeping the prices stable, but that's a politically unpredictable issue to say the least.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23dcb346982a8bdcf2ec460e8c272c4c", "text": "There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d31a275fbb717703bc4739ca6ad43aff", "text": "When I read that part of his post, it reminded me more of credit companies rather than banks. People default on credit all the time. I have no idea what the regulations are on the amount of credit that a company can issue, though. And this is sort of part of what actually happened in the beginning of the economic crunch. A bunch of people began to trade for credit (debt) against what they thought the *future* value of their house or other real estate would be. After a while, people stopped being able to afford property at its future value, so they stopped buying it. When people then tried to sell their property for the future value that they had borrowed against, they couldn't, so they couldn't pay back their debt. Because real estate had become a popular investment vehicle for the middle class, this was able to reach a kind of critical mass, and shortly afterward the effects rippled back into the credit market, which also had its own crunch -- a bunch of credit just disappeared overnight because so many people had assumed a level of debt that they could not actually fulfill their promises on once the future value of their home became completely imaginary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0dcaa4b799cd1892c0ae2860245e32e", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/1064061/house-flippers-triggered-the-us-housing-market-crash-not-poor-subprime-borrowers-a-new-study-shows/) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Analyzing a huge dataset of anonymous credit scores from Equifax, a credit reporting bureau, the economists-Stefania Albanesi of the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Geneva&amp;#039;s Giacomo De Giorgi, and Jaromir Nosal of Boston College-found that the biggest growth of mortgage debt during the housing boom came from those with credit scores in the middle and top of the credit score distribution-and that these borrowers accounted for a disproportionate share of defaults. &gt; The mortgages these prime borrowers were able to secure were much bigger than those taken out by poor homebuyers. &gt; Shoar&amp;#039;s work reveals that borrowing and defaults had risen proportionally across income levels and credit score, but that those with sounder credit ratings drove the rise in delinquencies. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xfbx2/house_flippers_triggered_the_us_housing_market/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~202565 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **credit**^#1 **borrowed**^#2 **mortgage**^#3 **score**^#4 **crisis**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a81fcec8b06a16d323ca49071561d6e7", "text": "My first thought was that it must be due to inflation, which causes such differences in many cases since a creditor needs to make back more than the rate of inflation in order not to effectively lose money. But it seems that Paraguay currently has only a very modest rate of inflation, about 3%. Other possible reasons for different credit rates: The latter is most likely. It means that if debtors are generally poor and are often completely unable to pay back the loan, or if there is no effective way to force uncooperative debtors to pay (e.g. when there are weak laws or overworked courts), then creditors will lose a lot of money to defaults and have to raise rates to compensate for this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28a0e1b5359a14a50a5383e06c2e5531", "text": "The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d5aab7d69f4d7dcc600f2e8dffe876e", "text": "\"House prices do not go up. Land prices in countries with growing economies tend to go up. The price of the house on the land generally depreciates as it wears out. Houses require money; they are called money pits for a reason. You have to replace HVAC periodically, roofs, repairs, rot, foundation problems, leaks, electrical repair; and all of that just reduces the rate at which the house (not the land) loses value. To maintain value (of the house proper), you need to regularly rebuild parts of the house. People expect different things in Kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms, doors, bedrooms today than they do in the past, and wear on flooring and fixtures accumulate over time. The price of land and is going to be highly determined by the current interest rates. Interest rates are currently near zero; if they go up by even a few percent, we can expect land prices to stop growing and start shrinking, even if the economy continues to grow. So the assumption that land+house prices go up is predicated on the last 35 years of constant rigorous economic growth mixed with interest rate decreases. This is a common illusion, that people assume the recent economic past is somehow the way things are \"\"naturally\"\". But we cannot decrease interest rates further, and rigorous economic growth is far from guaranteed. This is because people price land based on their carrying cost; the cost you have to spend out of your income to have ownership of it. And that is a function of interest rates. Throw in no longer expecting land values to constantly grow and second-order effects that boost land value also go away. Depending on the juristiction, a mortgage is a hugely leveraged investment. It is akin to taking 10,000$, borrowing 40,000$ and buying stock. If the stock goes up, you make almost 5x as much money; if it goes down, you lose 5x as much. And you owe a constant stream of money to service the debt on top of that. If you want to be risk free, work out how you'd deal with the value of your house dropping by 50% together with losing your job, getting a job paying half as much after a period of 6 months unemployment. The new job requires a 1.5 hour commute from your house. Interest rates going up to 12% and your mortgage is up for renewal (in 15 years - they climbed gradually over the time, say), optionally. That is a medium-bad situation (not a great depression scale problem), but is a realistic \"\"bad luck\"\" event that could happen to you. Not likely, but possible. Can you weather it? If so, the risk is within your bounds. Note that going bankrupt may be a reasonable plan to such a bit of bad luck. However, note that had you not purchased the house, you wouldn't be bankrupt in that situation. It is reasonably likely that house prices will, after you spend ~3% of the construction cost of the house per year, pay the mortgage on the land+house, grow at a rate sufficient to offset the cost of renting and generate an economically reasonable level of profit. It is not a risk-free investment. If someone tries to sell you a risk-free investment, they are almost certainly wrong.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "213f18ac19a519aadc9ab2415ad7cc9e", "text": "I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage! that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "647740b4ae71f5a6f13b36593cb3f041", "text": "The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
dc442c9d5d90da03d997d50d7fd58989
Why was S&P 500 PE Ratio so high on May 2009
[ { "docid": "12b7d06ba1eb87d6839062014583b981", "text": "\"Asking why the p/e was so high is best answered \"\"because reported earnings were so low\"\". Recall that the S&P500 bottomed in early March 2009 when the panic of the financial crisis reached exhaustion. As noted on the page you have linked, the reported p/e ratios are computed using reported earnings from the trailing twelve months. During those twelve months the banks were writing down all of the bad debt associated with the mortgage backed securities that has lost so much value. This meant that the banks were reporting negative earnings. Since the financial sector is a large part of the S&P500, this alone had an enormous effect on the index p/e. However, the problem was compounded by a general collapse in earnings across the economy as consumers reacted to the resulting uncertainty. The same site reports earnings for the previous years at $17.11 for the S&P500, compared to $76.17 for the year prior to 2008. That is a collapse of about 78% in earnings. Although the S&P500 has suffered badly during this time, stock market investors being forward looking were starting to price in improved earnings by May 2009. Indeed, the S&P500 was up about 33% in just two months, from its low in March2009 to mid May2009. Thus, by May of 2009 prices were not suffering to the same extent as reported trailing earnings. This would account for the anomalous p/e value reporting in May2009.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "bf168ee521b97096dbc19a8a9c86a3f4", "text": "It could be an endless number of reasons for it. It could simply just be a break through a long term resistance causing technical traders to jump in. It could be an analyst putting out a buy recommendation. If fundamentals have not changed then maybe the technicals have changed. Momentum could have reached an oversold position causing new buyers to enter the market. Without knowing the actual stock, its fundamentals and its technicals, no one will ever know exactly why.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e2e68179cb7715afc6b734828b30557", "text": "PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.", "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": "d3fa67f6d512004eb69580e49b12485e", "text": "\"Do you recall where you read that 25% is considered very good? I graduated college in 1984 so that's when my own 'investing life' really began. Of the 29 years, 9 of them showed 25% to be not quite so good. 2013 32.42, 2009 27.11, 2003 28.72, 1998 28.73, 1997 33.67, 1995 38.02, 1991 30.95, 1989 32.00, 1985 32.24. Of course this is only in hindsight, and the returns I list are for the S&P index. Even with these great 9 years, the CAGR (compound annual growth) of the S&P from 1985 till the end of 2013 was 11.32% Most managed funds (i.e. mutual funds) do not match the S&P over time. Much has been written on how an individual investor's best approach is to simply find the lowest cost index and use a mix with bonds (government) to match their risk tolerance. \"\"my long term return is about S&P less .05%\"\" sounds like I'm announcing that I'm doing worse than average. Yes, and proud of it. Most investors (85-95% depending on survey) lag by far more than this, many percent in fact)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3226b984a2e3f7ed89feb25f3e373bf9", "text": "\"Probably the biggest driver of the increased volumes that day was a change in sentiment towards the healthcare sector as a whole that caused many healthcare companies to experience higher volumes ( https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2017-07-11/asset-acquisitions-accelerate-in-healthcare-sector-boosting-potential-revenue-growth ). Following any spike, not just sentiment related spikes, the market tends to bounce back to about where it had been previously as analysts at the investment banks start to see the stock(s) as being overbought or oversold. This is because the effect of a spike on underlying ratios such as the Sharpe ratio or the PE ratio makes the stock look less attractive to buyers and more attractive to sellers, including short sellers. Note, however, that the price is broadly still a little higher than it was before the spike as a result of this change in sentiment. Looking at the price trends on Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/CDNA:US) the price had been steadily falling for the year prior to the spike but was levelling out at just over $1 in the few months immediately prior to the spike. The increased interest in the sector and the stock likely added to a general change in the direction of the price trend and caused traders (as opposed to investors) to believe that there was a change in the price trend. This will have lead to them trading the stock more heavily intraday exacerbating the spike. Note that there traders will include HFT bots as well as human traders. You question the legality of this volume increase but the simple answer is that we may never know if it was the target of traders manipulating the price or a case of insider trading. What we can see is that (taking \"\"animal spirits\"\" into account) without any evidence of illegality there are plenty of potential reasons why the spike may have occurred. Spikes are common where traders perceive a change in a trend as they rush to cash in on the change before other traders can and then sell out quickly when they realise that the price is fundamentally out of sync with the firm's underlying position. You yourself say that you have been watching the stock for some time and, by that fact alone, it is likely that others are for the same reasons that you are. Otherwise you wouldn't be looking at it. Where people are looking at a stock expecting it to take off or drop you expect volatility and volatility means spikes!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fec016cf575e64cf7800e78563810ec", "text": "\"&gt;\"\"Those measures all reflect a new way of measuring VaR though, one that switches the model from a four-year look to just one year, removing the rocky years of 2008 and 2009 from the current measure\"\" From my understanding (and I'm no risk mgmt or quant), and the specifics are lacking some in both articles, excluding 2008 and 2009 reduces the volatility of results in their VaR model. If you look at a chart of S&amp;P Volatility, you can see that 2008 and 2009 were anomalies, even though volatility was prevalent in every year since, until 2012. [VIX](http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=%5eVIX&amp;t=5y&amp;q=&amp;l=&amp;z=l&amp;a=v&amp;p=s&amp;lang=en-US&amp;region=US)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66530672adfb39be5f65813dc9f0922a", "text": "Here's the 2009-2014 return of the S&P 500 (SPY) vs. Vanguard FTSE ex-US (VEU) (higher returns bolded) Another argument for them is their low correlation to U.S stocks. Looking at history however, I don't see it. Most times U.S stocks have done badly, foreign stocks have also done badly. Looking at the last 6 years (and current YTD), 1 in 3 years have international stocks doing better. I invest a portion of my investments in international because they aren't well correlated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adbf8533f813e6417c05b3596645eb28", "text": "ETFs have caused many if not most stocks on the SP500 to become correlated. I think at some point in the last couple of years, 90% of the SP500 were correlated to the index itself. So you're going to see a lot of movement together of most stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec71eaa74d95a27d599d989b6c92d992", "text": "There is most likely an error in the WSJ's data. Yahoo! Finance reports the P/E on the Russell 2000 to be 15 as of 8/31/11 and S&P 500 P/E to be 13 (about the same as WSJ). Good catch, though! E-mail WSJ, perhaps they will be grateful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86f7fb8aee91031e8893956bc83201aa", "text": "Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7bbbba72cb8dc5b8dcf6cba5fd65700", "text": "The S&P 500 is a market index. The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500. I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cda4e508cbccdc13fb6c2499982293b", "text": "You are correct about the first two questions. At the time it was last measured those were the percent invested in the Basic Materials sector for the ETF and its benchmark. Note, this ETF will be significantly different from its benchmark as it is an equal-weight index rather than the more common capitalization-weighted index. Meaning that this ETF could have materially different performance from its benchmark. The third column is the average sector weights of all the ETFs in Morningstar's Large Blend category. These are ETFs that generally invest in a broad collection of large U.S. stocks and (weighted?) average of all of them will be generally fairly close to the benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "dabc7412a6bb3aa6b04232e77185d57a", "text": "\"The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: \"\"Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?\"\". It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to \"\"does it beat the market?\"\" is \"\"it depends...\"\". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting. To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by 2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16% for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the overall market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b285e55976bdcb3fcc8739e2e1f1296e", "text": "Long story short, 8% turned out to be the tipping point because it was the average subordination level of the A rated tranches of the subprime MBS bonds. The reason this was the magic number is because of the way bonds were placed during the period. Basically no end user wanted to take on the risk of buying below A-rated paper, so instead of being sold directly, these BBB rated and below bonds were re-packaged into CDOs and tranched off. Again, the higher rated paper was sold off to whomever, while the BBB and below stuff got reshuffled and repackaged into other CDOs or CDO^2 , further levering up the initial subprime bonds. Now, back to the magic 8% number. Remember how I said that 8% was the subordination level for the A rated subprime paper? The other way of saying that is once defaults reached 8%, the BBB and below tranches of the the MBS were completely wiped out. Since the CDOs were largely made up of these BBB and below MBS, once they started getting written down so did the CDOs. When the lower rated CDO tranches started to go, because they were also repackaged in the same way, it just continued the negative feedback loop and before long even the AA and AAA rated paper was seeing massive losses. As more and more supposedly safe paper started to get wiped out, highly leveraged CDS contracts started coming due, causing AIG (which had written contracts on over $500 billion in assets) to get downgraded by the rating agencies, putting it on the brink of going under. Because basically every major bank had exposure to AIG, had they gone under, the other banks would have all had to write down those contracts at the same time, essentially causing the entire financial system to collapse.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
1e4be5625fb00a9be587cb4ed32155e9
Is it worth buying real estate just to safely invest money?
[ { "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": "0d5aab7d69f4d7dcc600f2e8dffe876e", "text": "\"House prices do not go up. Land prices in countries with growing economies tend to go up. The price of the house on the land generally depreciates as it wears out. Houses require money; they are called money pits for a reason. You have to replace HVAC periodically, roofs, repairs, rot, foundation problems, leaks, electrical repair; and all of that just reduces the rate at which the house (not the land) loses value. To maintain value (of the house proper), you need to regularly rebuild parts of the house. People expect different things in Kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms, doors, bedrooms today than they do in the past, and wear on flooring and fixtures accumulate over time. The price of land and is going to be highly determined by the current interest rates. Interest rates are currently near zero; if they go up by even a few percent, we can expect land prices to stop growing and start shrinking, even if the economy continues to grow. So the assumption that land+house prices go up is predicated on the last 35 years of constant rigorous economic growth mixed with interest rate decreases. This is a common illusion, that people assume the recent economic past is somehow the way things are \"\"naturally\"\". But we cannot decrease interest rates further, and rigorous economic growth is far from guaranteed. This is because people price land based on their carrying cost; the cost you have to spend out of your income to have ownership of it. And that is a function of interest rates. Throw in no longer expecting land values to constantly grow and second-order effects that boost land value also go away. Depending on the juristiction, a mortgage is a hugely leveraged investment. It is akin to taking 10,000$, borrowing 40,000$ and buying stock. If the stock goes up, you make almost 5x as much money; if it goes down, you lose 5x as much. And you owe a constant stream of money to service the debt on top of that. If you want to be risk free, work out how you'd deal with the value of your house dropping by 50% together with losing your job, getting a job paying half as much after a period of 6 months unemployment. The new job requires a 1.5 hour commute from your house. Interest rates going up to 12% and your mortgage is up for renewal (in 15 years - they climbed gradually over the time, say), optionally. That is a medium-bad situation (not a great depression scale problem), but is a realistic \"\"bad luck\"\" event that could happen to you. Not likely, but possible. Can you weather it? If so, the risk is within your bounds. Note that going bankrupt may be a reasonable plan to such a bit of bad luck. However, note that had you not purchased the house, you wouldn't be bankrupt in that situation. It is reasonably likely that house prices will, after you spend ~3% of the construction cost of the house per year, pay the mortgage on the land+house, grow at a rate sufficient to offset the cost of renting and generate an economically reasonable level of profit. It is not a risk-free investment. If someone tries to sell you a risk-free investment, they are almost certainly wrong.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73714a6fd3ad30dd3f5a834177aeddde", "text": "People in the United States in the mid-2000's thought that real estate was safe. Then they discovered that when the bubble burst the value of their house dropped 10 to 50%. Then they realized that they couldn't sell, even if they had the cash to make the lender whole. Some lost their houses to foreclosure, others walked away and took massive hits to their wealth and credit scores. When it is hard or impossible to sell, that means you can't move to where the jobs are. While it is possible to make money in real estate, treating your house as an investment vehicle means that you are putting not only all your eggs into one basket; you are also living in the basket. In general you should assume that all investment involves risk. So if you are trying to avoid all chances of losing money then the safest form of investment is via your bank account and government bonds. Your national government has a program to insure bank accounts, you need to understand the rules for that program, including types of accounts and amounts. You should also look into your national programs for retirement accounts, to make sure you are investing for the long term. Many people invest via the stock market or the bond market. These investments are not guaranteed, though there may be some protection for fraud. The more specific your investments (individual companies) the more time you need to invest in research and tracking. Many investors do so via mutual funds or Exchange Traded Funds, this involves less of a time investment because you are paying the management comp nay for the fund to do that research for all their investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a47c65b0a06c138ef8250846a5a28aba", "text": "There are two parts to this. Firstly, if you are also living in the property you have bought, then you should not consider it to be an investment. You need it to provide shelter, and the market value is irrelevant unless/until you decide to move. Of course, if your move is forced at a time not of your choosing then if the market value has dropped, you might lose out. No-one can accurately predict the housing market any more than they can predict interest rates on normal savings accounts, the movement of the stock market, etc. Secondly, if you just have a lump sum and you want to invest it safely, the bank is one of the safest places to keep it. It is protected / underwritten by EU law (assuming you are in the EU) up to €100,000. See for example here which is about the UK and Brexit in particular but mentions the EU blanket protection. The other things you could do with it - buy property, gold, art works, stocks and shares, whatever thing you think will be least likely to lose value over time - would not be protected in the same way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df91c47eafc6397732ede7d8f2fe2602", "text": "\"You are mixing issues here. And it's tough for members to answer without more detail, the current mortgage rate in your country, for one. It's also interesting to parse out your question. \"\"I wish to safely invest money. Should I invest in real estate.\"\" But then the text offers that it's not an investment, it's a home to live in. This is where the trouble is. And it effectively creates 2 questions to address. The real question - Buy vs Rent. I know you mentioned Euros. Fortunately, mortgages aren't going to be too different, lower/higher, and tax consequence, but all can be adjusted. The New York Times offered a beautiful infographing calculator Is It Better to Rent or Buy? For those not interested in viewing it, they run the math, and the simple punchline is this - The home/rent ratio can have an incredibly wide range. I've read real estate blogs that say the rent should be 2% of the home value. That's a 4 to 1 home/rent (per year). A neighbor rented his higher end home, and the ratio was over 25 to 1. i.e. the rent for the year was about 4% the value of the home. It's this range that makes the choice less than obvious. The second part of your question is how to stay safely invested if you fear your own currency will collapse. That quickly morphs into too speculative a question. Some will quickly say \"\"gold\"\" and others would point out that a stockpile of weapons, ammo, and food would be the best choice to survive that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7238e6a38329958a49bf7b9e30ce6e74", "text": "\"Neither you nor others have mentioned the costs of being a homeowner. First, there are monetary costs. If you own a house, you have to pay taxes. They will vary by jurisdiction, but are usually not zero. You also need insurance, which again comes with monthly rates. Then, once in a while, you'll be hit with unpleasant lump sum payments. In 30 years, the mortgage is over and you own the house - but by that time, it will probably need a new roof. That's in the price range of a new car. And over that time, you'll rack up several other repairs which your landlord covers when you rent. Another thing which feels less like an expense emotionally but ends up thinning your wallet is the cosmetic changes you make just because it's your own home. You wouldn't put marble floors in the bathroom if you rent, but you might be tempted to if you live in the house. It might be even worth it from a life satisfaction point of view, but we are talking finance right now, and that's a minus. And then there are the opportunity costs. A house binds you geographically. You may pass up on a nice job offer because your house is too far away, for example. Or you might experience liquidity problems, because a house is difficult to turn into money in a hurry. If you are able to do so, it is usually a much larger sum than you need, and you are paying the costs inherent in that large transaction. These are just examples, you can probably come up with more costs. Then, it is not sure how much money you can get of the house if you change your mind. Say you take this job at the other end of the country, or you become a parent of four and need more space. At the time you decide to sell, the market may have gone down due to the overall state of the economy, or to the house location's popularity, or your own house may have turned undesirable (what if you get a mold infestation which would only go away if you strip it to the concrete and rebuild?) You could let it to renters, but that's a hassle of its own. It takes time to find renters, it may be expensive (income tax, regulations like Energieausweis in Germany), it is risky (if they don't pay, you might not see money even if you sue them). Then there is the problem that prices reflect not some kind of \"\"true\"\" value, but the intersection of supply and demand. And the home market is not as efficient as in a first semester microeconomics textbook. The buyers of private homes deal in small volumes, have little knowledge in the market, pay intermediaries' cuts, and are emotionally attached to the idea of \"\"owning my own house\"\". This drives demand up and creates higher prices than if you had perfectly rational actors on both sides. People pay money for the feeling of being home owners, so those who forego spending on that feeling have more money to invest in something else. Owning something always causes expenses. You have to calculate the savings of having the house vs. the expenses of having it, before you can decide if it is a good deal or not. If you only calculate one side of the equation, you'll be badly mistaken.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adf501f484179c36384e962cf72178e6", "text": "Investment is very uncertain, so I believe that unless you have loads of money, you should not play around with houses for the sole purpose of investing. Here are the questions which I would consider to judge the situation. Note that this is based on the current situation in The Netherlands Income: Your income is 1800 a month nett, which means your gross annual income should be somewhere below 28500. Allowed mortgage amount: Your maximum morgage amount is then roughly 135000 Is it expensive?: Given your maximum morgage, buying a 200k appartment would consume pretty much all your cash. There is some cost of buying the appartment, so basically if you buy it, you will not have much cash to decorate or deal with unforseen maintenance. If you are conservative, I would say that buying a 175k appartment is financially much more relaxing in your situation. What will be the monthly expense?: Monthly mortgage payments will be about 450~500. So your cashflow will suffer a bit. The amount you actually 'burn' on interest in the early months is about 180 nett (assuming an interest rate just below 2% and tax deductions). There will be additional costs (more heating, long term maintenance etc.) so overall the amount of money you burn will be close to the amount of money you burn on rent. Of course over time there will be less interest, so this should go down. Value change: The value may go up or down, in the very long term I would bet on it going up, but on the short or medium term it is quite uncertain. If you may live there for less than a decade, value change is more of a risk than a benefit. Break even point: As you mention that you will buy a house for 200k, I will assume it is not in the heart of a major city, and that renting it out may not be very attractive. However, I will also assume that it is not the middle of nowhere, and that it will only take a reasonable amount of time to sell the house. So if you want to move out, you will probably sell it at a reasonable price. In this case a rule of thumb is that living in an affordable house is usually a good idea when you live there for more than 5 years. (Is it likely that you will find a partner in this period of time, and will you live at your place then, or somewhere else?) Buying a 200k appartment would leave you completely cashless after you move in, something I would not recommend unless you can depend on your parents for instance to 'bridge the gap' when your cashflow dries up. From a monthly expense point of view you are probably going to be OK, as long as you survive the short run. And financially it only makes sense if you are going to live there for a while, and are fairly confident in your position in the labour market. I would personally recommend you to think hard on your family situation, and only buy a house if it leaves you with some cash in your pocket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e16929c4729303de3778f395776620d", "text": "Consider looking into real estate investment trusts (REITs). Assuming that they are available for the area that you are considering they simplify the process of investing in this sector. Your money pooled with other investors and then invested in a broad range of properties. If you go this route make sure to only by REITs that are traded in the open market (liquidity and an honest current valuation). Even better I would consider a index fund of REITs for more diversification. Personally I do use a US based REIT index as a small part of my portfolio so as to get better diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64d3ed9bdd8bc785d306c43ab39bcb18", "text": "\"No one has addressed the fact that your loan interest and property taxes are \"\"deductible\"\" on your taxes? So, for the first 2/3 years of your loan, you will should be able to deduct each year's mortgage payment off your gross income. This in turn reduces the income bracket for your tax calculation.... I have saved 1000's a year this way, while seeing my home value climb, and have never lost a down payment. I would consider trying to use 1/2 your savings to buy a property that is desirable to live in and being able to take the yearly deduction off your taxes. As far as home insurance, most people I know have renter's insurance, and homeowner's insurance is not that steep. Chances are a year from now if you change your mind and wish to sell, unless you're in a severely deflated area, you will reclaim at minimum your down payment.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "562c42a443fff22c390f5e45bb7d2402", "text": "\"Maybe a bit off topic, but I suggest reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" by Robert Kiyosaki. An investment is something that puts money to your pocket. If your properties don't put money to your pocket (and this seems to be the case), then they're not an investment. Instead, they drain money from you pocket. Therefore you should instead turn these \"\"investments\"\" into real investments. Make everything to earn some money using them, not to earn money somewhere else to cover the loses they create. If that's not possible, get rid of them and find something that \"\"puts money into your pocket\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c986bdc7bd14f116c542f34eb2db587", "text": "Real estate is never a low-risk investment. I'd keep your money in the bank, and make sure that you don't have more in any one bank than is guaranteed in the event of bank failure. If your bank account is in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal or Ireland, I'd consider moving it to Eurozone country that's in better shape, as there's just a slight possibility of one or more of those countries exiting the Eurozone in a disorderly fashion and forcibly converting bank accounts to a new and weak currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dee09c7bcf1ccfe6b8a68518b9eddb0", "text": "Being able to make small investments in very valuable real estate could make this a game changer. I want to invest in a skyscraper in the UAE, but I only have $10k. I can just use REAL tokens to buy a percentage of that property. At least, that's the way I understand this to work.", "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": "6f663ad4ec7451b19430e6e659f58d06", "text": "\"So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the \"\"normal\"\" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years? Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less? If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property. The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses. Another way to think about it: If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?\"", "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": "488a2e2da0765eb148803ded8cdeccfb", "text": "Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbc8773cb5a67bbf55cba1b513b1816b", "text": "\"Due to the zero percent interest rate on the Euro right now you won't find any investment giving you 5% which isn't equivalent to gambling. One of the few investment forms which still promises gains without unreasonable risks right now seems to be real estate, because real estate prices in German urban areas (not so in rural areas!) are growing a lot recently. One reason for that is in fact the low interest rate, because it makes it very cheap right now to take a loan and buy a home. This increased demand is driving up the prices. Note that you don't need to buy a property yourself to invest in real estate (20k in one of the larger cities of Germany will get you... maybe a cardboard box below a bridge?). You can invest your money in a real estate fund (\"\"Immobilienfond\"\"). You then don't own a specific property, you own a tiny fraction of a whole bunch of different properties. This spreads out the risk and allows you to invest exactly as much money as you want. However, most real estate funds do not allow you to sell in the first two years and require that you announce your sale one year in advance, so it's not a very liquid asset. Also, it is still a risky investment. Raising real estate prices might hint to a bubble which might burst eventually. Financial analysts have different opinions about this. But fact is, when the European Central Bank starts to take interest again, then the demand for real estate property will drop and so will the prices. When you are not sure what to do, ask your bank for investment advise. German banks are usually trustworthy in this regard.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd8e5ca4888ff871a3b76ce481bb3bd5", "text": "\"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other \"\"safe\"\" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc3d31cae4876d633c5f8674b48d8b89", "text": "\"Is it safe? No in general. Are there any other safe \"\"paper\"\" ways to invest money let's say for 30 years and be sure nothing will happen to them and you will end your life without relying on pension? No. In these times only real properly gives you some sort of warranty in 5-30 years term. Land, buildings, production lines. Not necessary in US - lots of countries have 0 or fairly low property tax. Some gold, platinum, silver and other rare elements to diversify. - This is the only way you can be sure you will not suddenly loose everything.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3da4efe6540dfd85d329d83f22974972", "text": "\"With no numbers offered, it's not like we can tell you if it's a wise purchase. -- JoeTaxpayer We can, however, talk about the qualitative tradeoffs of renting vs owning. The major drawback which you won't hear enough about is risk. You will be putting a very large portion of your net worth in what is effectively a single asset. This is somewhat risky. What happens if the regional economy takes a hit, and you get laid off? Chances are you won't be the only one, and the value of your house will take a hit at the same time, a double-whammy. If you need to sell and move away for a job in another town, you will be taking a financial hit - that is, if you can sell and still cover your mortgage. You will definitely not be able to walk away and find a new cheap apartment to scrimp on expenses for a little while. Buying a house is putting down roots. On the other hand, you will be free from the opposite risk: rising rents. Once you've purchased the house, and as long as you're living in it, you don't ever need to worry about a local economic boom and a bunch of people moving into town and making more money than you, pushing up rents. (The San Francisco Bay Area is an example of where that has happened. Gentrification has its malcontents.) Most of the rest is a numbers game. Don't get fooled into thinking that you're \"\"throwing away\"\" money on renting - if you really want to, you can save money yourself, and invest a sum approximately equal to your down payment in the stock market, in some diversified mutual funds, and you will earn returns on that at a rate similar to what you would get by building equity in your home. (You won't earn outsized housing-bubble-of-2007 returns, but you shouldn't expect those in the housing market of today anyway.) Also, if you own, you have broad discretion over what you can do with the property. But you have to take care of the maintenance and stuff too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5757acae7e1624d29020368571f4543e", "text": "I would suggest, both as an investor and as someone who has some experience with a family-run trust (not my own), that this is probably not something you should get involved with, unless the money is money you're not worried about - money that otherwise would turn into trips to the movies or something like that. If you're willing to treat it as such, then I'd say go for it. First off, this is not a short or medium term investment. This sort of thing will not be profitable right away, and it will take quite a few years to become profitable to the point that you could take money out of it - if ever. Your money will be effectively, if not actually, locked up for years, and be nearly entirely illiquid. Second, it's not necessarily a good investment even considering that. Real estate is something people tend to feel like it should be an amazing investment that just makes you money, and is better than risky things like the stock market; except it's really not. It's quite risky, vulnerable to things like the 2008 crash, but also to things like a local market being a bit down, or having several months with no renter. The amount your fund will have in it (at most $100x15/month) won't be enough to buy even one property for years ($1500/month means you're looking at what, 100-150 months before you have enough?), and as such won't have enough to buy multiple properties for even longer, which is where you reach some stability. Having a washing machine break down or a roof leak is a big deal when you only have one property to manage; having five or six properties spreads out the risk significantly. You won't get tax breaks from this, of course, and that's where the real issue is for you. You would be far better off putting your money in a Roth IRA (or a regular IRA, but based on your career choice and current income, I'd strongly consider a Roth). You'll get tax free growth, less risky than this fund AND probably faster growing - but regardless of both of those, tax free. That 15-25% that Uncle Sam is giving you back is a huge, huge deal, greater than any return a fund is going to give you (and if they promise that high, run far and fast). Finally, as someone who's watched a family trust work at managing itself - it's a huge, huge headache, and not something I'd recommend at least (unless it comes with money, in which case it's of course a different story). You won't agree on investments, inevitably, and you'll end up spending huge amounts of time trying to convince each other to go with your idea - and it will likely end up being fairly stagnant and conservative, because that's what everyone will be able to at least not object to. It might be something you all enjoy doing, in which case good luck - but definitely not my cup of tea.", "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": "" }, { "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": "9183b4c1428a12698926e2e6ad9e4e91", "text": "A possibility could be real estate brokerage firms such as Realogy or Prudential. Although a brokerage commission is linked to the sale prices it is more directly impacted by sales volume. If volume is maintained or goes up a real estate brokerage firm can actually profit rather handsomely in an up market or a down market. If sales volume does go up another option would be other service markets for real estate such as real estate information and marketing websites and sources i.e. http://www.trulia.com. Furthermore one can go and make a broad generalization such as since real estate no longer requires the same quantity of construction material other industries sensitive to the price of those commodities should technically have a lower cost of doing business. But be careful in the US much of the wealth an average american has is in their home. In this case this means that the economy as a whole takes a dive due to consumer uncertainty. In which case safe havens could benefit, may be things like Proctor & Gamble, gold, or treasuries. Side Note: You can always short builders or someone who loses if the housing market declines, this will make your investment higher as a result of the security going lower.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
22429b15e6eb37a66d13c7a2214646bb
What does a well diversified self-managed investment portfolio look like?
[ { "docid": "12cf46e5aa8dc153b2ce8e72f94d8999", "text": "Diversified is relative. Alfred has all his money in Apple. He's done very well over the last 10 years, but I think most investors would say that he's taking an incredible risk by putting everything on one stock. Betty has stock in Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Compared to Alfred, she is diversified. Charlie looks at Betty and realizes that she is only investing in one particular industry. All the companies in an individual industry can have a downturn together, so he invests everything in an S&P 500 index fund. David looks at Charlie and notes that he's got everything in large, high-capitalization companies. Small-cap stocks are often where the growth happens, so he invests in a total stock market fund. Evelyn realizes that David has all his money tied up in one country, the United States. What about the rest of the world? She invests in a global fund. Frank really likes Evelyn's broad approach to equities, but he knows that some portion of fixed-income assets (e.g. cash deposits, bonds) can reduce portfolio volatility—and may even enhance returns through periodic rebalancing. He does what Evelyn does, but also allocates some percentage of his portfolio to fixed income, and intends to maintain his target allocations. Being diversified enough depends on your individual goals and investing philosophy. There are some who would say that it is wrong to put all of your money in one fund, no matter what it is. Others would say that a sufficiently broad index fund is inherently diversified as-is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68137f0a658c2a2bc73b6b31ad72c235", "text": "\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30fe1f5527b4099b5136e2ba5d9789d9", "text": "\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dd39879140aabf6d2f9a8c931c16aee", "text": "\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "136a3319c5a9aa18f28e1dc9a86d035d", "text": "If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642b86f98a538677ffa13426a8d71943", "text": "Is it POSSIBLE? Of course. I don't even need to do any research to prove that. Just some mathematical reasoning: Take the S&P 500. Find the performance of each stock in that list over whatever time period you want to use for your experiment. Now select some number of the best-performing stocks from the list -- any number less than 500. By definition, the X best must be better than or equal to the average. Assuming all the stocks on the S&P did not have EXACTLY the same performance, these 10 must be better than average. You now have a diversified portfolio that performed better than the S&P 500 index fund. Of course as they always say in a prospectus, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. It's certainly possible to do. The question is, if YOU selected the stocks making up a diversified portfolio, would your selections do better than an index fund?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "846d367583fbcb6cd2fabd6e2d9345f9", "text": "\"I recommend you take a look at this lecture (really, the whole series is enlightening), from Swenson. He identifies 3 sources of returns: diversification, timing and selection. He appears to discard timing and selection as impossible. A student kinda calls him out on this. Diversification reduces risk, not increase returns. It turns out they did time the market, by shorting .com's before the bubble, and real estate just before the downturn. In 1990, Yale started a \"\"Absolute Return\"\" unit and allocated like 15 percent to it, mostly by selling US equities, that specializes in these sorts of hedging moves. As for why you might employ managers for specific areas, consider that the expense ratio Wall Street charges you or me still represent a very nice salary when applied to the billions in Yale's portfolio. So they hire internally to reduce expenses, and I'm sure they're kept busy. They also need people to sell off assets to maintain ratios, and figuring out which ones to sell might take specialized knowledge. Finally, in some areas, you functionally cannot invest without management. For example, Yale has a substantial allocation in private equity, and by definition that doesn't trade on the open market. The other thing you should consider is that for all its diversification, Yale lost 25 percent of their portfolio in 2009. For a technique that's supposed to reduce volatility, they seem to have a large range of returns over the past five years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5685b1ded2c93079cd5e6b11fdc85535", "text": "I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ae7882f2844b494bdcbdeb862fd76c5", "text": "I would recommend using growth/value/income/bond based asset allocation because your goal is to find asset classes that have different performance trends (when 1 is up, the other is down and vice-versa). If you chose Domestic, US stocks and diversified between Med Cap and Large Cap stocks, they would not exactly mirror each other, but they would roughly rise and fall at the same time, preventing you from taking full advantage of diversification, increasing risk and lowering returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c857c04427909172b1463baf2887b5b", "text": "\"Yes, a diversified portfolio can generate greater returns than the S&P 500 by going OUTSIDE it. For instance, small stocks (on average) generate higher returns than the \"\"large caps\"\" found in the S&P 500. So if you own a diversified portfolio of stocks, some of which are smaller (in market cap) than the typical S&P 500 stock, you have a chance to outperform. You might also outperform by owning other asset classes than stocks such as gold, real estate, and timber (among others) at appropriate times. (You may also be able to get the relevant exposure by owning gold and timber stocks and REITS.) This was a lesson that David Swensen of the Yale endowment taught us.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f733c669f45268778a0bccf62fb4aab9", "text": "Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8896bbf28ca415182cc04b43e45e9487", "text": "\"A good question -- there are many good tactical points in other answers but I wanted to emphasize two strategic points to think about in your \"\"5-year plan\"\", both of which involve around diversification: Expense allocation: You have several potential expenses. Actually, expenses isn't the right word, it's more like \"\"applications\"\". Think of the money you have as a resource that you can \"\"pour\"\" (because money has liquidity!) into multiple \"\"buckets\"\" depending on time horizon and risk tolerance. An ultra-short-term cushion for extreme emergencies -- e.g. things go really wrong -- this should be something you can access at a moment's notice from a bank account. For example, your car has been towed and they need cash. A short-term cushion for emergencies -- something bad happens and you need the money in a few days or weeks. (A CD ladder is good for this -- it pays better interest and you can get the money out quick with a minimal penalty.) A long-term savings cushion -- you might want to make a down payment on a house or a car, but you know it's some years off. For this, an investment account is good; there are quite a few index funds out there which have very low expenses and will get you a better return than CDs / savings account, with some risk tolerance. Retirement savings -- $1 now can be worth a huge amount of money to you in 40 years if you invest it wisely. Here's where the IRA (or 401K if you get a job) comes in. You need to put these in this order of priority. Put enough money in your short-term cushions to be 99% confident you have enough. Then with the remainder, put most of it in an investment account but some of it in a retirement account. The thing to realize is that you need to make the retirement account off-limits, so you don't want to put too much money there, but the earlier you can get started in a retirement account, the better. I'm 38, and I started both an investment and a retirement account at age 24. They're now to the point where I save more income, on average, from the returns in my investments, than I can save from my salary. But I wish I had started a few years earlier. Income: You need to come up with some idea of what your range of net income (after living expenses) is likely to be over the next five years, so that you can make decisions about your savings allocation. Are you in good health or bad? Are you single or do you have a family? Are you working towards law school or medical school, and need to borrow money? Are you planning on getting a job with a dependable salary, or do you plan on being self-employed, where there is more uncertainty in your income? These are all factors that will help you decide how important short-term and long term savings are to your 5-year plan. In short, there is no one place you should put your money. But be smart about it and you'll give yourself a good head start in your personal finances. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7701032534ea45756ab7256d60fb80c", "text": "If liquidity and cost are your primary objectives, Vanguard is indeed a good bet. They are the walmart of finance and the absolute best at minimizing fees and other expenses. Your main portfolio holding should be VTI, the total stock market fund. Highly liquid and has the lowest fees out there at 0.05%. You can augment this with a world-minus-US fund if you want. No need to buy sector or specific geography funds when you can get the whole market for less. Add some bond funds and alternative investments (but not too much) if you want to be fully diversified.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75e2b29099a8c4fa0c12049ef7f73594", "text": "What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dae84622294f488ae7fff5c11d07754a", "text": "That looks like a portfolio designed to protect against inflation, given the big international presence, the REIT presence and TIPS bonds. Not a bad strategy, but there are a few things that I'd want to look at closely before pulling the trigger.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fda874738f68f83b73d40aa1db1d01f1", "text": "You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b4d041501b889e30080b61b2a31216c", "text": "You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications. Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example. Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund. Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fec87ba98c65968d2530af5cf61d076", "text": "\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f50a77edeff46066dd58bbd93707a0f4", "text": "Here are the specific Vanguard index funds and ETF's I use to mimic Ray Dalio's all weather portfolio for my taxable investment savings. I invest into this with Vanguard personal investor and brokerage accounts. Here's a summary of the performance results from 2007 to today: 2007 is when the DBC commodity fund was created, so that's why my results are only tested back that far. I've tested the broader asset class as well and the results are similar, but I suggest doing that as well for yourself. I use portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest the results of my portfolio along with various asset classes, that's been tremendously useful. My opinionated advice would be to ignore the local investment advisor recommendations. Nobody will ever care more about your money than you, and their incentives are misaligned as Tony mentions in his book. Mutual funds were chosen over ETF's for the simplicity of auto-investment. Unfortunately I have to manually buy the ETF shares each month (DBC and GLD). I'm 29 and don't use this for retirement savings. My retirement is 100% VSMAX. I'll adjust this in 20 years or so to be more conservative. However, when I get close to age 45-50 I'm planning to shift into this allocation at a market high point. When I approach retirement, this is EXACTLY where I want to be. Let's say you had $2.7M in your retirement account on Oct 31, 2007 that was invested in 100% US Stocks. In Feb of 2009 your balance would be roughly $1.35M. If you wanted to retire in 2009 you most likely couldn't. If you had invested with this approach you're account would have dropped to $2.4M in Feb of 2009. Disclaimer: I'm not a financial planner or advisor, nor do I claim to be. I'm a software engineer and I've heavily researched this approach solely for my own benefit. I have absolutely no affiliation with any of the tools, organizations, or funds mentioned here and there's no possible way for me to profit or gain from this. I'm not recommending anyone use this, I'm merely providing an overview of how I choose to invest my own money. Take or leave it, that's up to you. The loss/gain incured from this is your responsibility, and I can't be held accountable.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
ab5990a009587f9fd8a6b06a71342c74
Why are the administrative fees for the three biggest donor-advised funds identical?
[ { "docid": "44fa918fa226a914a48c0e624bff32a8", "text": "The commenters who referred you to the prisoner's dilemma are exactly correct, but I wanted to give a more detailed explanation because I find game theory quite interesting. The prisoner's dilemma is a classic scenario in game theory where even though it's in the best interests of two or more players to cooperate, they fail to do so. Wikipedia has a simple example using prisoners, but I'll use a simple example using Fidel and Charles, who are fund managers at Fidelity and Charles Schwab, respectively. To make the table shorter, I abbreviated a bit: INC = increase fees, KEEP=keep fees the same, DEC=decrease fees. Here is the dilemma itself, in the table that shows the resulting market shares if each fund manager follows the course of action in question. While this example isn't mathematically rigorous because I completely fabricated the numbers, it makes a good example. The most profitable course of action would be both fund managers agreeing to increase their fees, which would keep their market shares the same but increase their profits as they earn more fees. However, this won't happen for several reasons. Because economies of scale exist in the market for investment funds, it's reasonable to assume in a simple example that as funds grow larger, their costs decrease, so even though a fund manager decreases his fees (betraying the other players), this decrease won't be enough to reduce their profits. In fact, the increased market share resulting from such a decrease may well dominate the decreased fees and lead to higher profits. The prisoner's dilemma is highly applicable to markets such as these because they exist as oligopolies, i.e. markets where a relatively small number of established sellers possess considerable market power. If you actually wanted to model the market for donor-advised funds using game theory, you need to take a few more things into account. Obviously there are more than two firms. It's probably a valid assumption that the market is an oligopoly with significant economies of scale, but I haven't researched this extensively. There is more than one time period, so some form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is needed. The market for donor-advised funds is also complicated by the fact that these are philanthropic funds. This may introduce tax implications or the problem of goodwill and institutional opinion of these funds. Although both funds increasing their fees may increase their profits in theory, institutional investors may look on this as a pure profit-seeking and take their funds elsewhere. For example, they may choose to invest in smaller funds with higher fees but better reputations. While reputation is important for any company, it might make more of a difference when the fund/investment vehicle is philanthropic in nature. I am by no means an expert on game theory, so I'm sure there are other nuances to the situation that I'm unaware of.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "a9f1d97d08857ec75a4dae304f17d6bd", "text": "\"This was an article meant for mass consumption, written by a Yale law professor and an individual who has a PhD in economics (in addition to his practical, on the job experience managing the Yale endowment). I'm having a hard time believing that it was \"\"poorly argued.\"\" As for proof, that's the sort of thing you find in financial and economic journals (for example, [The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Stock Markets](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/SternMicroMtg/SternMicroMtg2015/Papers/MakerTakerODonoghue.pdf)). One of the direct takeaways from the above paper states: *\"\"I find that total trading cost to investors increases, when the taker fee and maker rebate increase, even if the net fee is held fixed. The total trading cost represents the net-of-fees bid-ask spread and the brokerage commission to an investor wanting to buy and then sell the same stock.\"\"* I'm not here to argue for the paper. I'm really here to tell you that these guys have far more of a clue than you realize. ~~A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.~~ *Edit*: Thought I was responding to a different thread.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1eee4f33571648fb95733b26e6f5736", "text": "\"Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d354ffcba653ace3f0d5f2d49614d2d", "text": "First and foremost you need to be aware of what you are comparing. In this case, HSBC as traded on the NYSE exchange is not common shares, but an ADR (American Depository Receipt) with a 5:1 ratio from the actual shares. So for most intents and purposes owning one ADR is like owning five common shares. But for special events like dividends, there may be other considerations, such as the depository bank (the institution that created the ADR) may take a percentage. Further, given that some people, accounts or institutions may be required to invest in a given country or not, there may be some permanent price dislocation between the shares and the ADR, which can further lead to discrepancies which are then highlighted by the seeming difference in dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7c8115416ff9f0bb1c0fe23627ab8ab", "text": "The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a31634080d21cd160fd160fc41d54b5", "text": "\"That's an example of the Act applying to an adviser to a fund, not a fund being exempt from the Act. An adviser to a 3(c)7 fund in this case is taking advantage of a safe harbor pertaining to performance-based compensation set forth in the Act. The reasoning is that a 3(c)7 fund will by definition most likely be comprised of \"\"qualified clients.\"\" The prohibition does apply to other private funds - such as 3(c)1 funds. To the extent that their investors are not \"\"qualified clients,\"\" they are unable to charge a performance-based fee.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75e2b29099a8c4fa0c12049ef7f73594", "text": "What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30b42818168e9bacd7e46e29baf37382", "text": "Excellent summary. I'd add a minor point that it's cheaper to setup and run a hedge fund. The legal fees associated with starting a 40 Act mutual fund are about $750,000. A hedge fund cane be setup for about $80,000. It's also cheaper to keep the hedge fund going as the reporting requirements are much less. source: Have setup hedge funds and mutual funds. edit: A word and source. Edi", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f25b9fbec9ffacf7aed54f24f4be5ec", "text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdc088e3c947f07ccdf31e5b845889e8", "text": "\"I just looked at a fund for my client, the fund is T Rowe Price Retirement 2015 (TRRGX). As stated in the prospectus, it has an annual expense ratio of 0.63%. In the fine print below the funds expenses, it says \"\"While the fund itself charges no management fee, it will indirectly bear its pro-rata share of the expenses of the underlying T. Rowe Price funds in which it invests (acquired funds). The acquired funds are expected to bear the operating expenses of the fund.\"\" One of it's acquired funds is TROSX which has an expense ratio of 0.86%. So the total cost of the fund is the weighted average of the \"\"acquired funds\"\" expense ratio's plus the listed expense ratio of the fund. You can see this at http://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?clientid=schwab&key=84b36f1bf3830e07&cusip=74149P796 and its all listed in \"\"Fees and Expenses of the Fund\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3741d5862564553029f431e8570eb66", "text": "\"The mutual fund is legally its own company that you're investing in, with its own expenses. Mutual fund expense ratios are a calculated value, not a promise that you'll pay a certain percentage on a particular day. That is to say, at the end of their fiscal year, a fund will total up how much it spent on administration and divide it by the total assets under management to calculate what the expense ratio is for that year, and publish it in the annual report. But you can't just \"\"pay the fee\"\" for any given year. In a \"\"regular\"\" account, you certainly could look at what expenses were paid for each fund by multiplying the expense ratio by your investment, and use it in some way to figure out how much additional you want to contribute to \"\"make it whole\"\" again. But it makes about as much sense as trying to pay the commission for buying a single stock out of one checking account while paying for the share price out of another. It may help you in some sort of mental accounting of expenses, but since it's all your money, and the expenses are all part of what you're paying to be able to invest, it's not really doing much good since money is fungible. In a retirement account with contribution limits, it still doesn't really make sense, since any contribution from outside funds to try to pay for expense ratios would be counted as contributions like any other. Again, I guess it could somehow help you account for how much money you wanted to contribute in a year, but I'm not really sure it would help you much. Some funds or brokerages do have non-expense-ratio-based fees, and in some cases you can pay for those from outside the account. And there are a couple cases where for a retirement account this lets you keep your contributions invested while paying for fees from outside funds. This may be the kind of thing that your coworker was referring to, though it's hard to tell exactly from your description. Usually it's best just to have investments with as low fees as possible regardless, since they're one of the biggest drags on returns, and I'd be very wary of any brokerage-based fees when there are very cheap and free mutual fund brokerages out there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "819946382517061214fcfcea1453525c", "text": "You're right. That's a large part of what I talked about in my post, I just didn't call it that. The other provision of Title III (aka CROWDFUND Act) is that all the equity has to be purchased through a brokerage or funding portal. I mentioned those in another post in this thread.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61f292c177b78daa76fd032500f0bff7", "text": "This is a Vanguard-specific difference in the sense that in the US, Vanguard is a leader in lowering management fees for the mutual funds that they offer. Of course, several US mutual fund companies have also been lowering the expense ratio of their mutual funds in recent years because more and more investors have been paying attention to this particular performance parameter, and opting for funds that have low expense ratios. But many US funds have not reduced their expense ratios very much and continue to have expense ratios of 1% or even higher. For example, American Funds Developing World Growth and Income Fund (DWGAX) charges a 1.39% expense ratio while their 2060 Retirement Fund (AANTX) charges 1.12% (the funds also have a 5.75% sales charge); Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund charges 1.91% for their Class C shares, and so on. Many funds with high expense ratios (and sometimes sales charges as well) show up as options in far too many 401(k) plans, especially 401(k) plans of small companies, because small companies do not enjoy economies of scale and do not have much negotiating power when dealing with 401(k) custodians and administrators.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa5888916091d16a9b14403dc22f162d", "text": "They do. The $260 already accounts for fees, I just left that out as I didn't believe it necessary info for the question of how to solve for group B. Edit : Oh, you mean accounting for the 1.5% interchange for group A? Yeah, I didn't do that. For group A we weren't given a number for monthly spend but we were told that they carry an average monthly balance of $3000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19f06ae3fb5539ce2720a61d47286e51", "text": "\"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices. From an investors point of view, this is not important. What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage. In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%. Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the \"\"compare\"\" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500. You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds. Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11d9f20c10870a59cfb7994066ecf4c1", "text": "\"The IRS has been particularly vague about the \"\"substantially identical\"\" investment part of the wash rule. Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical. In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices. Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS. Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis, discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened. There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
a4dcbd112d3f2d6f4c6330a7cf8dec8d
Latest China devaluation (24/08/2015) and the affect on house prices in UK
[ { "docid": "29f1a0668a3ff47e25354278cfa0aed8", "text": "No. There is no indication that the recent decline will have an impact on the house market in the UK. The reason(s) for the downward move these last few weeks are mainly due to: The last two points caused the Chinese government to decide to devaluate the Yuan. This in turn triggered an unforeseen panic attack among investors and speculators around the globe starting with the Chinese that are trading on borrowed money (not only on margin but also by using loans). The UK house prices are not influenced by the above factors, not even indirectly. The most important factors for house prices are in general: If you keep the above points in mind you should be able to decide whether now is the right time to buy a house in your area. Given that a lot of central banks (incl. BoE) are maintaining a low interest rate policy (except fed soon), now is a good time to take a mortgage. Sources used: I know interest rates are determined by the BoE which looks at the global picture to determine these rates but the main directive of a central bank is to maintain an inflation close to but not exactly 2 % as to spur on economic growth. As such, the value of a company as valuated on the stock market is not or barely taken into account. The negligible impact is the reason why I stated that the crash in the summer of 2015 doesn't even have an indirect impact. Also such a crash is very short lived. It's more the underlying reason for the fears that could cause issues if they drag on.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "4f913c933d7b38b26098bb3834a4bcb3", "text": "Yes I kow my questions are broad and debatable, I was looking to spark the interest of multiple perspectives/opinions. Regarding the strength of western economic fundamentals, I think a lot of it has to do with simply better performance by companies, especially in Western Europe. I think both this performance (companies' broad EPS growth) as well as less anxiety over the future of the Eurozone/PIIG debt crisis has engendered a broad feeling of positive animal spirits. Imo this has become a recursive self fulfilling prophesy in the markets as people's optimistic expectations of the future leads to higher investment, lending and risk taking, which results in growth, which then rewards and spurs further spending/investment. The other argument (especially in EU) is that the ECB's sustained accommodative monetary policy policy is finally trickling down into European asset prices just like they did for US equities from 2011-2015. Regarding your series of questions about China/NK, I was genuinely hoping for answers/opinions on those questions you proposed. I think China is playing Trump and the State Dept like a fiddle - stringing us along with this Kim debacle while they quietly consolidate sea territory (man-made military islands) &amp; drilling rights in the South China Sea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c548c8f369622eaa6e0093a5f0b5d4ea", "text": "\"There has been almost no inflation during 2014-2015. do you mean rental price inflation or overall inflation? Housing price and by extension rental price inflation is usually much higher than the \"\"basket of goods\"\" CPI or RPI numbers. The low levels of these two indicators are mostly caused by technology, oil and food price deflation (at least in the US, UK, and Europe) outweighing other inflation. My slightly biased (I've just moved to a new rental property) and entirely London-centric empirical evidence suggests that 5% is quite a low figure for house price inflation and therefore also rental inflation. Your landlord will also try to get as much for the property as he can so look around for similar properties and work out what a market rate might be (within tolerances of course) and negotiate based on that. For the new asked price I could get a similar apartment in similar condos with gym and pool (this one doesn't have anything) or in a way better area (closer to supermarkets, restaurants, etc). suggests that you have already started on this and that the landlord is trying to artificially inflate rents. If you can afford the extra 5% and these similar but better appointed places are at that price why not move? It sounds like the reason that you are looking to stay on in this apartment is either familiarity or loyalty to the landlord so it may be time to benefit from a move.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b3edd3c63a7e3d6d2ba708edf2a95f8", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit10.pdf) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Correlations with Brexit Vote and Area Initial Conditions Brexit Vote Correlations One obvious question arising from the overall patterns discussed above is how predicted impacts relate to vote shares in the referendum. &gt; Figure 3: Brexit GVA Impact and Referendum Vote Share: Soft Brexit Hard Brexit Area Initial Conditions While the results so far imply a somewhat different narrative in terms of who is likely to lose most from Brexit, and how this relates to voting behaviour in the referendum, it is important to remember that the differences in expected impacts are swamped by existing disparities. &gt; 10 \fFigure 4: Correlation of Brexit GVA Impact with Pre-Referendum Median Wage: Soft Brexit Hard Brexit Finally, it is also important to note that the places experiencing the biggest initial shock are not necessarily those that will experience the most negative effects once the economy has adjusted. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6pshdw/new_lse_study_the_areas_that_were_most_likely_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~176491 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*: **Brexit**^#1 **trade**^#2 **impact**^#3 **Area**^#4 **under**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a51983803160439f6066f0ef2c496667", "text": "The Hong Kong Dollar has been pegged to the USD for nearly 30 years and the Hong Kong authorities have fairly strong means to defend the peg. So at first glance it would appear that there is really no difference as long as you are getting 7.75 HKD for each USD that you used to receive. However, the peg is arbitrary and could be lifted at any time like the removal of the CHF peg to EUR surprised a lot of people in early 2015. As mainland China becomes more integrated it is unclear what will happen to the HKD in the long run. Whether this matters really depends on your contracts. if your contracts are short dated you may only take a discount relative to USD for a few payments before you can try to renegotiate. It's also worth noting trading HKD for your local INR can be more expensive. Check your local rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f19cf16d9f0b11974c57af4cb5fb7ada", "text": "It is likely a bit of both. Cooking the books AND an economic miracle. There will definitely be a downturn eventually, and it will be interesting what shakes out. At this stage, the Chinese model appears to be stronger than any alternatives.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc41920a42710dffa8387e0de43b0ec2", "text": "GBP has already lost part of his value just because of the fear of Brexit. An actual Brexit may not change GBP as much as expected, but a no-Brexit could rise GBP really a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2036f85326acff63a28e09147404b52d", "text": "\"Have to do a presentation for an International Business and Cultures class in about a month and the assigned WSJ article isn't quite clicking with me and looking for a kind soul here to put it into layman's terms I guess. If I am violating any policy or breaking a rule by posting the text from the article, please delete. Thank you for any reply! WASHINGTON--Finance officials trying to avert the next global economic crisis found time at a summit here to worry about something besides Brexit and European banks: China's mounting debts and its flagging economic overhauls. The country's surging credit growth, overcapacity in its steel and metals industries and its bloated housing market drew widespread complaints from finance officials and central bankers attending semiannual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Officials congratulated China for its efforts to get the yuan included in the IMF's international basket of currencies, known as special drawing rights, starting Oct. 1. And despite a couple of scares in the past year or so, the country's markets and economic growth have appeared to stabilize in recent months. But in a sign of how important the world's second-biggest economy is to global growth, China is increasingly being called out. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew warned Beijing in unusually candid language about China's overproduction and overbuilding, which he suggested could become the biggest U.S. complaint about the country, as their earlier disputes over the country's exchange rate become less divisive. \"\"I'm talking about steel, I'm talking about aluminum, I'm talking about real estate--when you don't have market forces driving investment, when you don't have bad investments allowed to fail, you end up with resources allocated in a way that ultimately chokes the future of economic growth,\"\" Mr. Lew said at the Peterson Institute for International Economics on Thursday. The IMF zeroed in on a measure called current credit overhang, a widely followed international indicator of potential crises. The deviation of China's credit growth from its long-term trend has surged from zero during the financial crisis to up to 27%. Last year, banks' balance sheets grew to 286% of gross domestic product. \"\"More is needed, especially to curb excess credit growth, reduce the opacity of credit products, and ensure sound interbank funding structures,\"\" said Peter Dattels, deputy director of the fund's monetary and capital-markets department. China's policy makers are caught in a deepening trap, economists say. Dealing with the debt problem would require the country to start deleveraging. But slower credit growth is bound to hamper the overall economy. That could backfire by making it harder for companies to repay existing debt. Clamping down on credit would also raise the prospect of political unrest in a country that has grown accustomed to very rapid growth. Faced with such unappetizing prospects, the country's leaders have largely eschewed credit restraint in the hope that they will be able to deal with its economic problems over time. Part of the problem is the complicated and poorly disclosed structure of the country's swollen banking system, economists say. \"\"The increasing complexity, opaqueness of the shadow banking, both on the asset side, but even more on the funding side where a lot of the funding is short term, is not stable,\"\" Markus Rodlauer, the IMF's Asia-Pacific deputy director, told reporters on Thursday. \"\"It's still of a size that is manageable, but the trajectory is dangerous, and needs to be contained.\"\" China's appetite for steel and aluminum, which shrank abruptly in the past year or so, is of vital interest to commodity-exporting economies such as Russia and Brazil. For now, exporters appear to be confident that demand won't drop off again in the short term. \"\"China's growth is stabilized at a lower level,\"\" Brazilian Finance Minister Henrique Meirelles said in an interview. \"\"I don't see a further collapse coming.\"\" Still, much will depend on China's economic transition. \"\"They are trying to alter their priority from manufacturing to services, from export-oriented to domestic consumption,\"\" said Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in an interview. \"\"In the transformational stage, there will be ripples.\"\" Chinese officials in Washington touted the country's annual GDP of between 6% and 7% and said growth has remained stable as economy transitions. \"\"If that transformation is successful, China will continue to have a stable share of global growth,\"\" People's Bank of China Deputy Governor Yi Gang said on Thursday. Ian Talley and Bob Davis contributed to this article. Credit: By William Mauldin\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "031f7677868338ead3397e82547dabd7", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-sterling-idUSKBN1AR0M9) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; LONDON - Sterling fell to a fresh 10-month low against the euro on Friday as investors added bearish bets against the British currency on concerns the economy may be struggling to gain momentum. &gt; Sterling fell 0.2 percent to 90.92 pence against the euro, its lowest level since October 2016. &gt; It has fallen for two consecutive weeks and has weakened nearly 9 percent against the euro since early May. Morgan Stanley strategists are predicting euro parity with the pound in the first quarter of 2018. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6thf3f/british_pound_further_down/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~190040 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*: **against**^#1 **since**^#2 **Sterling**^#3 **week**^#4 **euro**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee42ef375ffa65f018756fa459957830", "text": "December, 1, 2011 (03:00pm) :- China's manufacturing data's are slides to 49 below 50, a signal of contraction by which whole Chinese economy affected. Due to the European crisis, the global demand is weak which Chinese affected the most because china is the only market which manufactures the product an unbelievable cost. Global demand still weak this may be continues by next 2 - 3 months. Base metal prices are higher composed to 2010 levels, the profit levels also drooped by 5% to the manufactures. Base metals trends looking down in December. Cooper may be range Rs 370 - Rs 440 Zinc mzy be range Rs 97 - Rs 113. Nickel may be range Rs 870 - Rs 960. Lead may be range Rs 98 - Rs 112.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f3dfd40cb1bb4f27f925cc604f4f6d", "text": "Summarized article: The London-based investment bank Barclays Bank has agreed to pay penalties of $450 million to settle charges it attempted to manipulate key benchmark interest rates. The settlement is with the US Department of Justice, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the British Financial Services Authority (FSA). Investigators found that Barclays manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) which measures how much banks will charge each other for loans, and in turn, affects the cost of loans and mortgages to consumers. Between 2005 and 2009, Barclays staff would base its estimates for the Libor on the requests of its derivatives traders, who wanted to manipulate the rate to benefit their trading positions. The traders would ask their Barclays colleagues to adjust their rate estimates up or down to post a profit for the bank. The FSA said that Barclays appeared to have a wide acceptance of its derivatives traders lobbying its colleagues and found evidence through a trail of emails and instant messages. Barclays has admitted its actions fell short of industry standards but it is unclear if there was any impact to consumers. The FSA is investigating several major banks for similar violations. * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit", "title": "" }, { "docid": "907eb18cce27c549d8d2eb9b8c2cc46e", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/australia-home-prices-fall-in-may-as-lending-curbs-start-to-bite) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The monthly decline comes after regulators tightened lending curbs amid fears of a housing bubble, and the nation&amp;#039;s banks raised interest rates - especially for interest-only loans which are popular with property investors seeking to take advantage of tax breaks. &gt; The monthly drop was led by declines of 1.3 percent in Sydney and 1.7 percent in Melbourne, the two cities where prices have risen the fastest. &gt; In Sydney, prices have gained 75 percent in the past five years, ranking it behind only Hong Kong as the world&amp;#039;s least affordable housing market. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ele2v/australian_house_prices_fell_in_may_for_the_first/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133825 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*: **housing**^#1 **percent**^#2 **prices**^#3 **demand**^#4 **property**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "914dcbba4ab9d561b1215bcf16e4db8c", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40934138) reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The average price of a home in the UK went up by nearly &amp;pound;2,000 to &amp;pound;223,000 in June, according to official figures. &gt; The Office for National Statistics figures show the wide variation in price movements across the UK. In the month of June, the average price of London home fell &amp;pound;3,000 to &amp;pound;482,000, while a house in the North East of England gained &amp;pound;2,000 to &amp;pound;130,000. &gt; The biggest change was in Orkney where the average price is 28% higher than a year ago at &amp;pound;148,000. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6txyxk/house_price_growth_holding_steady/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~191667 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*: **price**^#1 **average**^#2 **while**^#3 **June**^#4 **London**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59d1a34109ae14597a3015d1f5164e06", "text": "It actually has already started. People were protesting outside offices that sold defaulted WMPs across China. The government forced landlords to cut the leases of those wealth managers so that they wouldn't have a premises for investors to protest at. Lol. This news isn't **new** but it shouldn't be ignored either. China does have a problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b3ab468bd841ecc00e694259ed01d66", "text": "\"I am not an expert in this stuff, but my understanding is that the debt is in the form of US treasury securities, which mature at set rates and are paid at maturation. So technically, the US Treasury \"\"pays off\"\" a portion of its debt whenever the debt securities mature. Thus, if China (or any country) buys new Treasury securities at a slower rate than its currently held Treasury securities are maturing, the amount of US debt held by China will decrease. This is what I hear China has been doing recently.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05fe48493991c5b36b90932e2b37f540", "text": "Some highly pessimistic things worth noting to go alongside all the stability and tax break upside that homes generally provide: Negative equity is no joke and basically the only thing that bankrupts the middle classes consistently en masse. The UK is at the end of a huge housing bull run where rents are extremely cheap relative to buying (often in the 1% range within the M25), Brexit is looming and interest rates could well sky rocket with inflation. Borrowing ~500k to buy a highly illiquid asset you might have to fire sale in case of emergency/job loss etc for 300k in a few years when lots of (relatively) cheap rental housing is available to rent risk free, could be argued to be a highly lopsided and dangerous bet vs the alternatives. Locking in 'preferential' mortgage rates can be a huge trap: low interest rates generally increase asset values. If/when they rise, assets fall in value as the demand shrinks, making you highly exposed to huge losses if you need to sell before it is paid off. In the case of housing this can be exceptionally vicious as the liquidity dramatically dries up during falls, meaning fire sales become much more severe than they are for more liquid assets like stock. Weirdly and unlike most products, people tend to buy the very best house they can get leverage for, rather than work out what they need/want and finding the best value equivalent. If a bank will lend you £20 a day to buy lunch, and you can just afford to pay it, do you hunt out the very best £20 lunch you can every day, or do you make some solid compromises so you can save money for other things etc? You seem to be hunting very close to the absolute peak amount you can spend on these numbers. Related to above, at that level of mortgage/salary you have very little margin for error if either of you lose jobs etc. Houses are much more expensive to maintain/trade than most people think. You spend ~2-5% every time you buy and sell, and you can easily spend 2-20k+ a year depending what happens just keeping the thing watertight, paid for, liveable and staying up. You need to factor this in and be pessimistic when you do. Most people don't factor in these costs to the apparent 'index' rise in house values and what they expect to sell for in x years. In reality no buy and hold investor can ever realise even close to the quoted house price returns as they are basically stocks you have to pay 5% each time you buy or sell and then 1-20% percent a year to own - they have to rise dramatically over time for you to even break even after all the costs. In general you should buy homes to make memories, not money, and to buy them at prices that don't cause you sleepless nights in case of disasters.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
aa6a88394da635c4f05bf02f3b73d726
Saving $1,000+ per month…what should I do with it?
[ { "docid": "556d779950d628f3bdb98b63bbbf4757", "text": "If you can get a rate of savings that is higher than your debt, you save. If you can't then you pay off your debt. That makes the most of the money you have. Also to think about: what are you goals? Do you want to own a home, start a family, further your education, move to a new town? All of these you would need to save up for. If you can do these large transactions in cash you will be better off. If it were me I would do what I think is a parroting of Dave Ramsay's advice Congratulations by the way. It isn't easy to do what you have accomplished and you will lead a simpler life if you don't have to worry about money everyday.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55d0352e77cbf9feac3c222d54381206", "text": "Daniel, first of all, I'm jealous of your predicament. That said, I think you've gotten some good advice already, so I won't repeat what's been said. But I will throw out a few ideas that haven't come up. My first thought is that you may be underestimating upcoming expenses. It sounds like your current expenses are low, and that's great! I'm impressed that you're living below your means, and looking for the best way to use your extra cash. But you may not be thinking of a few things. You have a girlfriend, and maybe your relationship isn't such that you are planning a wedding quite yet. But, regardless of whether your current girlfriend is your future life partner or not, if you think marriage may be in your future at all, you'll save yourself a lot of stress if you've got some savings for a wedding in place before you're ready to commit. Next, what are you driving? If it's a good car that you expect to last you another 10 years, you're probably ok right now. But if you may need to replace your vehicle in the next few years, start saving now and you may be able to buy it outright. (I expect your interest rate on financing a car would be higher than your current student loan rates, so I would save for a car before paying down loans with such beautiful rates.) A house has already been discussed, and there was also mention of additional education, and both of those require a solid financial plan that begins far in advance. In summary, I think you need a lot more than $5K in savings. Sure, have some fun, and take advantage of opportunities to travel, etc, as they come along, but if you're able to bump your savings by $500 to $1000/month, I think you'll really be glad you did. When it comes time for a new car, or you find you're ready to settle down, it will be nice to have somewhere to draw from, and if there's only $5K in your savings, you may come to regret choices you made when you were 22.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7d3435a4e39ea6bed75f49d8497f61b", "text": "I like the other answers. But, here's one thing that concerns me that hasn't specifically been addressed yet: You mentioned your student loans are at low rates of interest. Are those rates fixed or variable? If those interest rates are variable, I would not count on rates remaining low indefinitely. If you could imagine those rates going up by say 2% or 4% or more over time, would such rates make you change your mind about the debt and the pace at which you're paying it off? I would suggest that as the economy recovers over the next couple of years, the spectre of inflation will force the Fed to raise interest rates. You don't want to be holding variable-rate debt when rates are rising. For that reason, if your loan rate is variable, I would increase your payment amount so you can eliminate your debt sooner than later. Also – You mention in one of your comments that buying a home is 4+ years away. That's not a long time, so I wouldn't commit the bulk of your savings to investing in the stock market, which can be temperamental over short periods of time. You don't want to be in a large loss position just when it's time to buy your first home. However, it may be worth having some of your skin in the game, so to speak. Personally, I would take a balanced approach: 1/3 debt repayment, 1/3 high interest cash savings, and 1/3 in some broad diversified index funds – and not all in the U.S. Although, I also like the idea of getting some travel in while young, so perhaps 1/4 allocations to the money stuff, and 1/4 towards travel? :-) Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af3cf921fb277e45c7332b18aee7786e", "text": "In your situation I suggest: In terms of what to spend it on, one tax preparer I knew said he would ask his wealthy clients (ones with real net worth) what they spent their money on, and it was almost always travel. We agree, memories from our trips are ones that last a lifetime. I can't say much else you buy gives you the same long term payback in your personal life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22c8e351ddc1a5b4035a08fa02187530", "text": "Excellent responses so far. Because I am a math guy, I wanted to stress the power of compounding. It's great that you are thinking about saving and your future when you are so young. Definitely be displined about your saving and investing. You would be surprised how just a small amount can compound over the years. For example, if you were to start with $5000 and contribute $100 per month. Assuming that you can get 5% ROR (hard in today's world but shouldn't be down the road), your final principal after 28 years (when you are 50 years old) will be over $90,000, which of only $38,000 is what you contributed yourself. The rest is interest. You can play with the numbers here: http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67c1d21cd147964789c000d38ef3992b", "text": "\"Since you already have an emergency fund in place, focus your extra funds on paying off debts like student loans. While some have advised you to play the stock market, not one person has mentioned the word \"\"risk\"\". You are gambling (\"\"investing\"\") your money in the hopes your money will grow. Your student loan is real liability. The longer you keep the loan, the more interest you will pay. You can pay off your student loan in 21 months if you pay $1,100 each month. After the 21 months, you can almost fully fund a 401(k) each year. That will be amazing at your age. Our company gives us the Vanguard Retirement Fund with a low expense ratio of 0.19%. It is passive automated investing where you don't have to think about it. Just add money and just let it ride.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "8a8a67ea7ce494e435405a0f4a50e3b6", "text": "Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7edfda479cd3187bb936a5557781d157", "text": "I think it's great idea. Many large brokerages give customers access to a pretty sizable list of zero commission, zero load funds. In this list of funds will certainly be an S&P 500 index. So you can open your account for free, deposit your $1,000 for free and invest it in an S&P index for no cost. You'll pay a very negligible amount in annual expense fees and you'll owe taxes on your gain if you have to use the money. I don't follow the school of thought that all investment money should be in retirement account jail. But I think if you have your spending under control, you have your other finances in order and just want to place money somewhere, you're on the right track with this idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be1457dce52fb089a066c59174891798", "text": "\"First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means. I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350. You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%. Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to \"\"invest.\"\" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it. An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation. However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond. As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017). Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months. If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a \"\"portfolio\"\" that's 50/50 stocks and \"\"bonds,\"\" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want). I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ab2a8a407c36954c932ed6f3b091b88", "text": "I think the answer depends on whether you're trying to get out of debt and stay out, or if you just want this card paid off. That is, are you changing the way you deal with money and debt for good? If you just want this card paid off, and you're OK with going back into debt later, then @Mike Scott's advice is one way to go. I'd personally be nervous about leaving myself with no cash reserves at all. If you are planning to get out of debt and stay out, then you don't want to put yourself in a position where you're tempted to go back into debt as soon as you hit a speed bump. So, you need some cushion so that an emergency doesn't push you right back to the credit cards. If you've got a budget that you can live on, and that covers your usual expenses, and your job is relatively stable, then $1000 is probably enough of a cushion for most things. You can then pay off most of the credit card using the rest of your savings. If you're in an unstable job situation, then you'll want to keep more, if not all, of your savings as protection against the instability. Once the situation stabilizes, then throw the surplus savings at the debt. $1000 doesn't cover all possible emergencies, but it's generally a good tradeoff between prudence and paranoia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc13c4bd1503bbb1b62c7955bea94d58", "text": "\"An alternative to a savings account is a money market account. Not a bank \"\"Money Market\"\" account which pays effectively the same silly rate as a savings account, but an actual Money Market investment account. You can even write checks against some Money Market investment accounts. I have several accounts worth about 13,000 each. Originally, my \"\"emergency fund\"\" was in a CD ladder. I started experimenting with two different Money market investment accounts recently. Here's my latest results: August returns on various accounts worth about $13k: - Discover Bank CD: $13.22 - Discover Bank CD: $13.27 - Discover Bank CD: $13.20 - Discover Savings: $13.18 - Credit Union \"\"Money Market\"\" Savings account: $1.80 - Fidelity Money Market Account (SPAXX): $7.35 - Vanguard Money market Account (VMFXX): $10.86 The actual account values are approximate. The Fidelity Money Market Account holds the least value, and the Credit Union account by far the most. The result of the experiment is that as the CDs mature, I'll be moving out of Discover Bank into the Vanguard Money Market account. You can put your money into more traditional equities mutual fund. The danger with them is the stock market may drop big the day before you want to make your withdrawl... and then you don't have the down payment for your house anymore. But a well chosen mutual fund will yield better. There are 3 ways a mutual fund increase in value: Here's how three of my mutual funds did in the past month... adjusted as if the accounts had started off to be worth about $13,000: Those must vary wildly month-to-month. By the way, if you look up the ticker symbols, VASGX is a Vanguard \"\"Fund of Funds\"\" -- it invests not 100% in the stock market, but 80% in the stock market and 20% in bonds. VSMGX is a 60/40 split. Interesting that VASGX grew less than VSMGX...but that assumes my spreadsheet is correct. Most of my mutual funds pay dividends and capital gains once or twice a year. I don't think any pay in August.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f77161ebc75b3cf13e4813498cc4d564", "text": "There isn't any place you can put $300 and turn it into significant passive income. What you need to do instead is manage the active (work) income that you have so that your money goes farther, freeing income up for reducing debt and investing. Investing $300 one time won't add up to much, but investing $100 a month will turn into wealth over time. Making a monthly budget is the key to managing your income. In the process, you'll find out where your income is going, and you can be intentional about how much you want to spend on different things in your life. You can allocate some of your income to paying down debt and investing, which is what you need to do to get ahead. For some general guidelines on what to do with your money first, read this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing. For more specifics on creating a budget, eliminating debt, and building wealth, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32e71fb321d39a1fceb84c0481f32a5c", "text": "Put £50 away as often as possible, and once it's built up to £500, invest in a stockmarket ETF. Repeat until you retire.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9e79c3970a82e9d968dd3eaf9229e54", "text": "\"This is the kind of scenario addressed by Reddit's /r/personalfinance Prime Directive, or \"\"I have $X, what should I do with it?\"\" It follows a fairly linear flowchart for personal spending beginning with a budget and essential costs. The gist of the flowchart is to cover your most immediate costs and risks first, while also maximizing your benefits. It sounds like you would fall somewhere around steps 1 and 3. (Step 2 won't apply since this is not pretax income.) If you don't already have at least $1000 reserved in an emergency fund, that's a great place to start. After that, you'll want to use the rest to pay down your debt. Your credit card debt is very high interest and should be treated as a financial emergency. Besides the balance of your gift, you may want to throw whatever other funds you have saved beyond one month's expenses at this problem. As far as which card, since you have multiple debts you're faced with the classic choice of which payoff method to use: snowball (lowest balance first) or avalanche (highest interest rate first). Avalanche is more financially optimal but less immediately gratifying. Personally, since your 26% APR debt is so large and so high interest, I would recommend focusing every available penny on that card until it is paid off, and then never use it again. Again, per the flowchart, that means using everything left over after steps 0-2 are fulfilled.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22ba2c6a256d23ebdf731deccab54e55", "text": "\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \"\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\"\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caa58a3c723ea171bbb174a6b013af7c", "text": "\"Probably not what you want to hear, but: Open a savings account. Deposit a pre-determined amount every month. Write down what you are saving for in specific detail. Emergencies are injury, sickness, auto breakdowns, bail money, eviction, nasty stuff like that. If you are saving up for something fun, trip to Europe, car, etc. write that down. Do not take from the account for any other purpose. Avoid taking it out even in lesser emergencies if you can do so without incurring debt. Don't daydream about what you could do with it. It is not for that. It's purpose should be singular. Keep an extra, smaller amount for frivolous stuff in your main checking or a different savings. Use that for impulse buys, and if the impusle can't be afforded by that amount, train yourself to know \"\"can't\"\". I can't buy that, it's not in the budget. Not I shouldn't. I can't. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a98fba0c27c7f053d2da01a8f1a8a7a", "text": "I would put this money to a high-interest savings account. It will not earn you too much, but it will save it from inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d1e91dd9b70da76f6ad1b4bb1a86ab0", "text": "Personally I solve this by saving enough liquid capital (aka checking and savings) to cover pretty much everything for six months. But this is a bad habit. A better approach is to use budget tracking software to make virtual savings accounts and place payments every paycheck into them, in step with your budget. The biggest challenge you'll likely face is the initial implementation; if you're saving up for a semi-annual car insurance premium and you've got two months left, that's gonna make things difficult. In the best case scenario you already have a savings account, which you reapportion among your various lumpy expenses. This does mean you need to plan when it is you will actually buy that shiny new Macbook Pro, and stick to it for a number of months. Much more difficult than buying on credit. Especially since these retailers hate dealing in cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa00b34cb37c39234a063ce5118d2230", "text": "Sure, you'd make an $8.33 during that first month with little extra risk. Sounds like free money, right? (Assuming no hidden fees in the fine print.) I don't know that the extra money is worth the time you will spend monitoring the account, especially after inflation claims its share of your pie. If you're going to use leverage to invest, you should probably pick an investment that will return at a much higher rate. If you can get an unsecured line of credit at 1%, there aren't a lot of downsides. Hopefully interest rates don't rise high enough to eat your earnings, but if they do, you can always liquidate your investments and pay the remainder of the loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "996646b3a3c87bc269fd93c685c9e848", "text": "You can earn significantly more than 0.99% in the stock market. I'd pay the $450/month and invest the rest in a (relatively conservative) stock market fund, making monthly withdrawals for the car note.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1cb69170f7e03a21020382812c5b1ed", "text": "Based on your question details, I doubt you'll like this answer...but first things first, you need to focus on rebuilding your credit and your savings. $1K isn't a huge loan amount, so I'm going to assume you've made some poor decisions in the past to get to this point. I'm a small business owner, and I make it a goal to have 3-6 months of expected expenses in an account, should my circumstances ever drastically change or something happen that would keep me from working. Without knowing your living situation and daily expenses, here's some general advice on building a small business without a loan: 1) Find steady, gainful employment anywhere you can. 2) Pay off outstanding debts and rebuild a savings account to rebuild your credit score. 3) If you need fast cash, sell some stuff you don't need (gaming systems, home electronics, etc.). Also, minimize your unnecessary expenses (dining out, etc.). 4) Once your debts are paid off, create a business startup savings plan (put away as much as you can afford every week, until you reach your goal. 5) Once your goal is reached, you can begin your flipping business. Open a bank account, and separate your profits into buckets for operations, self-pay, and taxes (if you declare this income, which I hope you do). For myself, I put away 35% for income taxes, which I do not touch until my taxes are paid. I put 40% away for daily operations -- this keeps my business running, allowing me to pay for the equipment I need, the products I deliver, and advertising to keep my business running. I pay myself 25%. This is a simple method, but it works well for me.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
9c62aadb71d5256fed4bcee1640ccce8
What is the pitfall of using the Smith maneuver
[ { "docid": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842", "text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "b7f83a97dfce677a8cbbe76aa56d822a", "text": "&gt; Smith earned $15 million in total compensation in 2016, including a $1.5-million base salary and $7.3 million in stock awards, according to the company’s securities filings. &gt; As of Dec. 31, his pension was valued at $18.4 million, the filings showed. Smith is entitled to that pension “under any circumstances,” Gutzmer said.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d331a7d58dd50ed1858f361b6e640d57", "text": "I will expand this to 401K's, 403B's, and the federal retirement program. There are 3 things to worry about when trading: The tax friendly retirement programs will remove the worry about taxes. Most will reduce or eliminate the concern about transaction fees. But some programs will limit the number of transactions per month. In the past few years the federal program has cracked down on people who were executing trades every day. While employees are able to execute trades without a fee, the costs related to each transaction were being absorbed into the cost of running the program. To keep the costs down they limited the number of transactions per month. Some private programs have limited the movement of money between some of the investment options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64a0080a7faeef7c5d3b8afb1106f8f2", "text": "\"If i do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. The \"\"random walk\"\"/EMH theory that you are assuming is debatable. Among many arguments against EMH, one of the more relevant ones is that there are actually winning trading strategies (e.g. momentum models in trending markets) which invalidates EMH. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. It's only true if the market is truly an independent stochastic process. As mentioned above, there are empirical evidences suggesting that it's not. is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? The ability to profit is more than just being able to make a right call on which direction the market will be going. Even beginners can have a >50% chance of getting on the right side of the trades. It's the position management that kills most of the PnL.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23a1942c7b909c8c0a16d1cbf824842e", "text": "If you plan to take profit at $1.00 then your profit will be $40. Then, if you set your stop at $0.88 then your loss if you get stopped will be $20. So your Reward : Risk = 2:1. Note, that this does not take into account brokerage in and out and any slippage from the price gapping past your stop loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96347bc9f864460e64c7d4b3f9adb866", "text": "My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90cf653a01b6f9a034dc013a6e16605f", "text": "\"value slip below vs \"\"equal a bank savings account’s safety\"\" There is no conflict. The first author states that money market funds may lose value, precisely due to duration risk. The second author states that money market funds is as safe as a bank account. Safety (in the sense of a bond/loan/credit) mostly about default risk. For example, people can say that \"\"a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond is safe\"\" because the United States \"\"cannot default\"\" (as said in the Constitution/Amendments) and the S&P/Moody's credit rating is the top/special. Safety is about whether it can default, ex. experience a -100% return. Safety does not directly imply Riskiness. In the example of T-Bond, it is ultra safe, but it is also ultra risky. The volatility of 30-year T-Bond could be higher than S&P 500. Back to Money Market Funds. A Money Market Fund could hold deposits with a dozen of banks, or hold short term investment grade debt. Those instruments are safe as in there is minimal risk of default. But they do carry duration risk, because the average duration of the instrument the fund holds is not 0. A money market fund must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements. If you have $10,000,000, a Money Market Fund is definitely safer than a savings account. 1 Savings Account at one institution with amount exceeding CDIC/FDIC terms is less safe than a Money Market Fund (which holds instruments issued by 20 different Banks). Duration Risk Your Savings account doesn't lose money as a result of interest rate change because the rate is set by the bank daily and accumulated daily (though paid monthly). The pricing of short term bond is based on market expectation of the interest rates in the future. The most likely cause of Money Market Funds losing money is unexpected change in expectation of future interest rates. The drawdown (max loss) is usually limited in terms of percentage and time through examining historical returns. The rule of thumb is that if your hold a fund for 6 months, and that fund has a weighted average time to maturity of 6 months, you might lose money during the 6 months, but you are unlikely to lose money at the end of 6 months. This is not a definitive fact. Using GSY, MINT, and SHV as an example or short duration funds, the maximum loss in the past 3 years is 0.4%, and they always recover to the previous peak within 3 months. GSY had 1.3% per year return, somewhat similar to Savings accounts in the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32d1ae25d45bff448b385f3f172f87f3", "text": "caveat: remember that complex derivatives can be very bad for your wealth (even if you FULLY understand them).", "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": "dbd6058d06909749851d84b6f20389a9", "text": "You've asked for risks but neglected straight up costs. CD laddering will have some explicit and implicit costs:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "388f355419ddadce6e0fac4adf5e8be1", "text": "First I would be very careful using a short ETF. There could be some serious tracking error, especially if its levered. Second, when it comes to forex you are in the world of PIPS and high leverage. You would need to have significant capital to be able to hold out the swings as banks do their interventions. Plenty of people have been short waiting, and waiting, and waiting, unless you think you know something the market doesn't this seems like a pretty high risk strategy. I'd suggest buying options instead, but they will be expensive given the volatility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b4a5fff5ef3a98fcf333a137464c7af", "text": "Deliberately breaking transactions into smaller units to avoid reporting requirements is called structuring and may attract the attention of the IRS and/or law enforcement agencies. I'm not sure what the specific laws are on structuring with respect to FBAR reporting requirements and/or electronic transfers (as opposed to cash transactions). However, there's been substantial recent publicity about cases where people had their assets seized simply because federal agents suspected they were trying to avoid reporting requirements (even if there was no hard evidence of this). It is safer not to risk it. Don't try to structure your transactions to avoid the reporting requirements.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69c794fa0948f77a425d8f76ed1e36ca", "text": "This serves as very crucial for the new business manager who is not adept in prospecting the outcomes and for whom, the passages are new! A minor mistake on his part could plunge the whole new venture into the backlash mode which could be potentially dangerous!For More Info:- http://www.startupmentor.co.in/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4a0495fedb4a5edad9a887d78543dc5", "text": "\"Came across this very nice video which explains the \"\"Long Straddle\"\". Thought will share the link here: http://www.khanacademy.org/finance-economics/core-finance/v/long-straddle\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22ae57c52676b06d852420a2c9538018", "text": "There are several reasons it is not recommended to trade stocks pre- or post-market, meaning outside of RTH (regular trading hours). Since your question is not very detailed I have to assume you trade with a time horizon of at least more than a day, meaning you do not trade intra-day. If this is true, all of the above points are a non-issue for you and a different set of points becomes important. As a general rule, using (3) is the safest regardless of what and how you trade because you get price guarantee in trade for execution guarantee. In the case of mid to longer term trading (1 week+) any of those points is viable, depending on how you want to do things, what your style is and what is the most comfortable for you. A few remarks though: (2) are market orders, so if the open is quite the ride and you are in the back of the execution queue, you can get significant slippage. (1) may require (live) data of the post-market session, which is often not easy to come by for the entire US stock universe. Depending on your physical execution method (phone, fax, online), you may lack accurate information of the post-market. If you want to execute orders based on RTH and only want to do that after hours because of personal schedule constraints, this is not really important. Personally I would always recommend (3), independent of the use case because it allows you more control over your orders and their fills. TL;DR: If you are trading long-term it does not really matter. If you go down to the intra-day level of holding time, it becomes relevant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4623e9f341a2fa3d253b34079c687a3", "text": "In common with many companies, Microsoft has been engaging in share buyback programmes, where it buys its own shares in the market and then cancels them. It's often a more tax-efficient way to distribute profits to the shareholders than paying a dividend. So there were more Microsoft shares in circulation in 1999 than there are now. See here for information.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
dcd2ac3b3cbfeff27b7b60249c3eb145
strategy for the out of favour mining sector
[ { "docid": "5cc436c8a115dcb100a2e11d74384478", "text": "At this particular time, I would strongly suggest holding on and not bailing. I've been following this sector pretty closely for 10+ years now. It has taken an absolute beating since 2011 (up to 90% down in many areas), and has been in a slow downward grind all year. Given the cyclical nature of the markets, you're far far closer to a long term bottom, and have a much better risk/reward outlook now vs say, four, or even two years ago. Personally, I'm planning on jumping into the sector heavily as soon as I see signs of a wash-out, desperation low, where people like yourself start selling in panic and frustration. I may very likely start cost-averaging into it even now, although I personally feel we may get one more major bottom around the spring 2016 time-frame, coupled with a general market deflation scare, which might surprise many by its severity. But at the same time, the sector might turn up from here and not look back, since I think many share my view and are just patiently waiting, and with so many buyers waiting in support, it may never crash hard. In any case, I personally feel that we're approaching the cheap buying opportunity of a lifetime in this sector within the next year (precious metals miners that is, base metals may still falter if the economy is still iffy, and just look at the baltic dry index as an indicator of world trade and productivity... not looking so hot). If you've suffered this long already, and it is just a small portfolio portion, just keep hanging in there. And by next summer, if we get a confirmed panic low, and a subsequent strong, high-volume, consistent bounce pattern up past summer 2015 levels, then I'd start adding even more on dips and enjoy the ride.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18db0e4ca9c70f63f9dfd4813596faf3", "text": "\"I'll take a stab at this question and offer a disclosure: I recently got in RING (5.1), NEM (16.4), ASX:RIO (46.3), and FCX (8.2). While I won't add to my positions at current prices, I may add other positions, or more to them if they fall further. This is called catching a falling dagger and it's a high risk move. Cons (let's scare everyone away) Pros The ECB didn't engage in as much QE as the market hoped and look at how it reacted, especially commodities. Consider that the ECB's actions were \"\"tighter\"\" than expected and the Fed plans to raise rates, or claims so. Commodities should be falling off a cliff on that news. While most American/Western attention is on the latest news or entertainment, China has been seizing commodities around the globe like crazy, and the media have failed to mention that even with its market failing, China is still seizing commodities. If China was truly panicked about its market, it would stop investing in other countries and commodities and just bail out its own country. Yet, it's not doing that. The whole \"\"China crisis\"\" is completely oversold in the West; China is saying one thing (\"\"oh no\"\"), but doing another (using its money to snap up cheap commodities). Capitalism works because hard times strengthen good companies. You know how many bailouts ExxonMobil has received compared to Goldman Sachs? You know who owns more real wealth? Oil doesn't get bailed out, banks do, and banks can't innovate to save their lives, while oil innovates. Hard times strengthen good companies. This means that this harsh bust in commodities will separate the winners from the losers and history shows the winners do very well in the long run. Related to the above point: how many bailouts from tax payers do you think mining companies will get? Zero. At least you're investing in companies that don't steal your money through government confiscation. If you're like me, you can probably find at least 9 people out of 10 who think \"\"investing in miners is a VERY BAD idea.\"\" What do they think is a good idea? \"\"Duh, Snapchat and Twitter, bruh!\"\" Then there's the old saying, \"\"Be greedy when everyone's fearful and fearful when everyone's greedy.\"\" Finally, miners own hard assets. Benjamin Graham used to point this out with the \"\"dead company\"\" strategy like finding a used cigarette with one more smoke. You're getting assets cheap, while other investors are overpaying for stocks, hoping that the Fed unleashes moar QE! Think strategy here: seize cheap assets, begin limiting the supply of these assets (if you're the saver and not borrowing), then watch as the price begins to rise for them because of low supply. Remember, investors are part owners in companies - take more control to limit the supply. Using Graham's analogy, stock pile those one-puff cigarettes for a day when there's a low supply of cigarettes. Many miners are in trouble now because they've borrowed too much and must sell at a low profit, or in some cases, must lose. When you own assets debt free, you can cut the supply. This will also help the Federal Reserve, who's been desperately trying to figure out how to raise inflation. The new patriotic thing to do is stimulate the economy by sending inflation up, and limiting the supply here is key.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "a5c24dda372ef6aacc271ce6f77061ca", "text": "I would recommend that go through some forums where commodities topics be discussed so that if you have some issues related any point in commodities investment you will easily get your question sort out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3b46a3bcf094f4b1063d750d505eb04", "text": "From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fd26276e78483ab169d223d20198f1b", "text": "Employment, output and inflation are your feedback. Too little spending manifests as a an output gap with elevated unemployment and low inflation. Too much spending shows up as full employment, full capacity and rising inflation as additional dollars just bid up prices. Get it right and you have full employment with price stability. So are we there yet? Well, it's not a static point we reach and cross but a dynamic balance in every period based on what's going on in the non-government sectors. Lately we've been leaning towards too little and the result is a tepid, stagnant recovery dragging on for years with elevated unemployment, weak growth and a persistant [output gap](http://lostoutputclock.com/).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb4539d14a460c05bbedaebb6a7be667", "text": "Trying to engage in arbitrage with the metal in nickels (which was actually worth more than a nickel already, last I checked) is cute but illegal, and would be more effective at an industrial scale anyway (I don't think you could make it cost-effective at an individual level). There are more effective inflation hedges than nickels and booze. Some of them even earn you interest. You could at least consider a more traditional commodities play - it's certainly a popular strategy these days. A lot of people shoot for gold, as it's a traditional hedge in a crisis, but there are concerns that particular market is overheated, so you might consider alternatives to that. Normal equities (i.e. the stock market) usually work out okay in an inflationary environment, and can earn you a return as they're doing so.... and it's not like commodities aren't volatile and subject to the whims of the world economy too. TIPs (inflation-indexed Treasury bonds) are another option with less risk, but also a weaker return (and still have interest rate risks involved, since those aren't directly tied to inflation either).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee7673f671ed5a34d53c823b8f4fd189", "text": "For an investor , I understand its a higher return on investment; but I was wondering if an investor is actually investing in the minerals, or the means of delivery such as ports, rail, trucks, roads, etc; or is that abstracted away", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e57000db4a48e0c6eb6ebb6c74266973", "text": "a) Nothing would support this company going back to $.50 per share b) Fundamentally the market for this sectors has been obliterated and the fundamentals don't look like they will improve. Similar companies experience what this one is and will be going through, they borrow the hilt and hope they can pump enough oil and sell the oil at a high price. Oil goes below, WAYYY below the price they can sell it at and even break even, so they are burning cash until they declare bankruptcy. This company is not an exception. So here is what to look at on their balance sheet: assets and liabilities. Liabilities are debt. Their debt is over 50% of their assets, that debt has interest and there is NO WAY they are making a profit. Their website's last financial statement is from September 30th.. LOL, so they haven't even released a quarterly financial statement in two quarters straight, so have they released anything? Given what we know about the dire state of the entire oil drilling industry, lets see if these guys are the exception to the rule (spoiler; they aren't) February 15th, 2015 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/strategic-oil-gas-ltd-provides-operations-update-2015-02-19-16173591 The Company prudently elected to stop the winter Muskeg drilling program in order to preserve capital. So now they aren't even getting new assets to resale, they aren't making any money from that operation, their debt still has interest payments though. Approximately 700 Boe/d of production has been shut-in by suspending operations at Bistcho, Cameron Hills and Larne, which are not economic at current commodity prices. Predictable. Also, you should notice from their actual financial statements (from 6 months ago, lol) (when the price of oil was over 100% higher than it is today, lol), this company already wasn't a good performer. They have been financing themselves by doing private placements, by issuing shares to investors that are not you, and diluting the share value of ALL OTHER SHAREHOLDERS. Dead in the water. I got this from skimming their financial report, without even being familiar with how canadian companies report. Its just bad news. You shouldn't be married to this investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e1b72a5a28d65b5d87e882185f51eca", "text": "The solution is spending restraint during the growth periods and prudent application of counter-cyclical fiscal policy, especially during the slow periods. The USA embarked on a strange experiment lead be Greenspan of excessively low interest rates for a prolonged period of time. Periods of strong economic growth should feature high interest rates, periods of reduced economic growth can then be countered somewhat through monetary policy. The government should also endeavour to run surplus budgets during the good times and not be afraid of turning those into deficit budgets in the downturns. If you run a deficit budget during a period of strong economic growth, together with low cash rates you have nowhere to move when the cycle reverses. The solution now? That is difficult. I would say that the solution now would be to raise revenues through corporate taxes and similarly increase government spending on investments aimed at stimulating the economy. Use this time to invest in the much needed infrastructure maintenance and upgrades that the USA needs. These need to be fast-tracked into action and I would therefore consider fixing infrastructure as more important than installing new infrastructure. There are probably long-term structural adjustments that need to be looked at too, but I am not intimately familiar with the USA as I am Australian. It is clear however that Austerity during economic downturns does not help end the recession (or benign growth). It is clear to me as an observer however that employment appears to be the big issue in the USA right now, so cutting jobs is not a smart move. Edit: I'll point out that my opinion comes from the Australian experience, our government ran surplus budgets during our period of recent growth and our reserve bank kept interest rates high. When the GFC hit us in 2008 the government almost instantly reversed its fiscal policy, going so far as mailing $900 cheques to every Australian just to get cash flowing in the economy, they then embarked upon infrastructure spending programs. Similarly the reserve bank were able to quickly and dramatically reduce interest rates. The result was that we saw 1 quarter of mildly negative growth, and positive growth ever since (hence no recession). We ran a textbook example of counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy which is today lauded by economists over. We now have 5% unemployment, low government debt (relative to the OECD) and high economic growth (relative to the OECD).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7075e33c922159b54d3a00ce2738b205", "text": "Early stage investors by their nature prefer opportunities which are disruptive to existing technologies. They look for a ‘big idea’ in a relatively small but rapidly expanding market. They don’t tend to be attracted to marginal improvements which yield marginal returns. They’re in the business of betting on the nature of the next new world.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "449486b08cb08ed650a7895ee6fe80d7", "text": "\"One cannot apply a \"\"one size fits all\"\" approach to any and all economic situations. We are currently in a recession/depression/whatever due to a lack of demand. Please tell me what would be the best way to get out of this particular scenario.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5a8e535668584f0c0edc1e3564513d8", "text": "Capital circulation doesn't work in the model of everyone producing products they can all already produce independently, and the money going to raw material and 3D printer inputs are a fixed cost to all construction, which outside of asteroid mining has limitations. The Economy needs a stable cycle for capital, the challenge with this automation is that the requirement for capital circulation appears vulnerable to instability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eddf10b9b6dae95cbbd0441684ab2b0a", "text": "Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5af803ad1057bd5c372ba42af3916233", "text": "\"I think the last sentence sums up what needs to be done: \"\"The answer is a rebooted capitalism for a new economic era, using the power of the state where it is necessary to fix market failures and to break up vested interests, but also recognising the unique power of entrepreneurs to produce abundance out of scarcity and dynamism out of stagnation.\"\" Capitalism is far from dead and is still by far the best economic policy available, it's just changing a bit specifically on a few minor points.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c81dbb5bcf9de91c3000669d11ebe0d", "text": "As BobbyScon said in the comments, invest in a company that is developing in that field. Or invest in a company which supplies that field. The people who got rich in the California gold rush were those selling shovels and other miners' supplies. Or bet against whatever you think this will displace. If automobiles are the hot new thing, it might be a bad time to invest in harness leather. Or ... figure out how else it might impact the economy and invest appropriately. But you have to do that evaluation yourself. Or ignore it and stick with your existing strategy, which should have been diversified enough to deliver reasonable results whether this sector takes off or not. Remember that if someone gives you a free tip, they are probably just hoping to pump up the value of their own stock rather than help you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b528f29ebaead09e2665fc7058ec1a55", "text": "Institute of Supply Management, specifically their Report on Business. Good forward looking indicator. As far as the weekly report, I'd probably read it, maybe even contribute, but I more of a lurker on this sub. I saw your question and have had some similar experiences so I thought I could help you out.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
c0b7b0e5dc7abf5ba4795f2cbd2181cc
Is inflation inapplicable in a comparison of paying off debt vs investing?
[ { "docid": "8e437a2c62972a44657f449075e12786", "text": "\"Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down. This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. \"\"Investing\"\" can mean a lot of different things. Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company. A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation. When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever. If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%. In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time. If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed. If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected. In that case it's not really \"\"inflation\"\" that affected the stock returns, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d75d9d5c4aa7f516fd700eac2a55788", "text": "I'd agree, inflation affects the value of the dollar you measure anything in. So, it makes your debt fade away at the same rate it eats away at dollar denominated assets. I'd suggest that one should also look at the tax effect of the debt or assets as well. For example, my 3.5% mortgage costs me 2.625% after tax. But a 4% long term cap gain in stocks, costs me .6% in tax for a net 3.4%.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "28cb52ce5df1834d18b6d82d80833025", "text": "Yes, there's a difference. If you've borrowed $100, then under inflation your salary will (presumably) increase, and tomorrow your debt will only be worth $99. But under demurrage, you'll still owe $100.", "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": "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": "fa327188e0f66a6892b1eb4a93527697", "text": "Yes, in 2 ways: As you mention, the price of a home generally grows with inflation - along with other factors (supply and demand in local markets, etc.). Through financing. If you finance 80% of your purchase today, in 2014 dollars, you will pay back in future dollars. Those future dollars are worth less, because of inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a37eaad18e2c46e41dca3d6ce66a1da1", "text": "Whether or not it is logical probably depends on individual circumstance. When you take on (or maintain) debt, you are choosing to do two things: The first is clear. This is what you describe very well in your answer. It is a straightforward analysis of interest rates. The fixed cost of the debt can then be directly compared to expected return on investments that are made with the newly available cash flow. If you can reasonably expect to beat your debt interest rate, this is an argument to borrow and invest. Add to this equation an overwhelming upside, such as a 401k match, and the argument becomes very compelling. The second cost listed is more speculative in nature, but just as important. When you acquire debt, you are committing your future cash flow to payments. This exposes you to the risk of too little financial margin in the future. It also exposes you to the risk of any negatives that come with non-payment of debt (repossession, foreclosure, credit hit, sleeping at night, family tension, worst-case bankruptcy) Since the future tends to be difficult to predict, this risk is not so easy to quantify. Clearly the amount and nature of the debt is a large factor here. This would seem to be highly personal, with different individuals having unique financial or personal resources or income earning power. I will never say someone is illogical for choosing to repay their debts before investing in a 401k. I can see why some would always choose to invest to the match.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fef389da72a3933fc59fbc4e3eb5879", "text": "I concur that you should probably go with option 1. And that is coming from a guy that refinanced all three of his properties with down to 20% equity 3 years ago to lock in either 4% 30 year fixed or 2.75% 15 year mortgage. And I will not pay them off early because I do think I can do better than that in the market even if inflation is 0% for the next 30 years. Just imagine when the fed stops manipulating tax rates. I could be making more than 4% just in a checking account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d70dfe7af0a5ccacb9cdbbf24852a54", "text": "Hmm, looking at the macro economy, hoarding money will decrease the monetary supply, so the Fed will offset that with increases to the monetary supply to achieve target interest rates. Which will lead to higher inflation, hurting your savings minus debt. Exactly what's going on in the rest of the economy. For investment sake, can't you find something with at least some sort of return, rather than getting nothing with physical currency?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a35f96a14a089886783b22be0a55d45", "text": "\"As you're saving up for an expenditure instead of investing for the long run, I would stay away from any sort of \"\"parking facility\"\" where you run the risk of not having the principal protected. The riskier investments that would potentially generate a bigger return also carry a bigger downside, ie you might not be able to get the money back that you put in. I'd shop around for a CD or a MMA/regular savings account with a half-decent interest rate. And yes, I'm aware that the return you might get is probably still less than inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bd0f4fb65ecc39d9507ec35125ae6e1", "text": "There are two components to any non-trivial financial decision: Assuming that all things remain equal, borrowing money at a low rate while investing for a higher return is a no-brainer. The problem is, all things do not remain equal. For example: I think that you need to assess your position and preferences. I'd err on the side of being in less debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62eedc6dd5f5c6e5b6f0fb1bbee1c9a8", "text": "You're losing money. And a lot of it. Consider this: the inflation is 2-4% a year (officially, depending on your spending pattern your own rate might be quite higher). You earn about 1/2%. I.e.: You're losing 3% a year. Guaranteed. You can do much better without any additional risk. 0.1% on savings account? Why not 0.9%? On-line savings account (Ally, CapitalOne-360, American Express, E*Trade, etc) give much higher rates than what you have. Current Ally rates are 0.9% on a regular savings account. 9 times more than what you have, with no additional risk: its a FDIC insured deposit. You can get a slightly higher rate with CDs (0.97% at the same bank for 12 months deposit). IRA - why is it in CD's? Its the longest term investment you have, that's where you can and should take risks, to maximize your compounding returns. Not doing that is actually more risky to you because you're guaranteeing compounding loss, of the said 3% a year. On average, more volatile stock investments have shown to be not losing money over periods of decades, even if they do lose money over shorter periods. Rental - if you can buy a property that you would pay the same amount of money for as for a comparable rental - you should definitely buy. Your debt will be secured by the property, and since you're paying the same amount or less - you're earning the equity. There's no risk here, just benefits, which again you chose to forgo. In the worst case if you default and walk away from the property you lost exactly (or less) what you would have paid for a rental anyway. 14 years old car may be cheaper than 4 years old to buy, but consider the maintenance, licensing and repairs - will it not some up to more than the difference? In my experience - it is likely to. Bottom line - you think you're risk averse, but you're exactly the opposite of that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e579c480f632018d2e79008cd1ccaa4b", "text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b61eb81f67a953cfb6e04afe443616a9", "text": "Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3c3f7d8b8ea34d9e2946cdc47094ef5", "text": "What you are seeing is the effects of inflation. As money becomes less valuable it takes more of it to buy physical things, be they commodities, shares in a company's stock, and peoples time (salaries). Just about the only thing that doesn't track inflation to some degree is cash itself or money in an account since that is itself what is being devalued. So the point of all this is, buying anything (a house, gold, stocks) that doesn't depreciate (a car) is something of a hedge against inflation. However, don't be tricked (as many are) into thinking that house just made you a tidy sum just because it went up in value so much over x years. Remember 1) All the other houses and things you'd spend the money on are a lot more expensive now too; and 2) You put a lot more money into a house than the mortgage payment (taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.) I'm with the others though. Don't get caught up in the gold bubble. Doing so now is just speculation and has a lot of risk associated with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2df67d91e2c1c9ae4457d083be5beb0c", "text": "I think you're missing Simon Moore's point. His point is that, due to low inflation, the returns on almost all asset classes should be less than they have been historically, so we shouldn't rebalance our portfolio or withdraw from the market and hold cash based on the assumption that stocks (or any other asset) seem to be underperforming relative to historical trends. His last paragraph is written in case someone might misunderstand him, he is not advocating to hold cash, just that investors should not expect as good returns as has happened historically, since those happened in higher inflation environments. To explain: If the inflation rate historically has been 5% and now it's 2%, and the risk-free-market return should be about 2%, then historically the return on a risk-free asset would be 7% (2%+5%), and now it should be expected to be 4% (2%+2%). So, if you have had a portfolio over some time you might be concerned that the rate of return is worsening, but Simon's point is that before you sell off your stocks / switch investment brokers, you should try to figure out if inflation is the cause of the performance loss. On the subject of cash: cash always loses value over time from inflation, since inflation is a measure of the increase in prices over time-- it's a part of the definition of what inflation is. That said, cash holdings lose value more slowly when inflation is lower, so they are relatively less worse than before. The future value of cash doesn't go up in low inflation (you'd need deflation for that), it just decreases at a lower rate, that is, it becomes less expensive to hold- but there still is a price. As an addendum, unless a completely new economic paradigm is adopted by world leaders, we will always see cash holdings decrease in value over time, since modern economics holds that deflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b71efbb3f5044251b6e0a556fed686ed", "text": "\"If you haven't been a US resident (not citizen, different rules apply) at the time you sold the stock in Europe but it was inside the same tax year that you moved to the US, you might want to have a look at the \"\"Dual Status\"\" part in IRS publication 519.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
5877570c7f5c29d407ca98b2ed9477d7
Why are currency forwards needed?
[ { "docid": "ab25a613fdb672925f18ec5c484f974a", "text": "Can't I achieve the exact same effect and outcome by exchanging currency now and put that amount of USD in a bank account to gain some interest, then make the payment from one year from now? Sure, assuming that the company has the money now. More commonly they don't have that cash now, but will earn it over the time period (presumably in Euros) and will make the large payment at some point in time. Using a forward protects them from fluctuations in the exchange rate between now and then; otherwise they'd have to stow away USD over the year (which still exposes them to exchange rate fluctuations).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c7b4c73d0cfa05f6db8ec14315332e2", "text": "Suppose you're a European Company, selling say a software product to a US company. As much as you might want the US company to pay you in Euros they might insist (or you'll lose the contract) that you agree pricing in USD. The software is licensed on a yearly recurring amount, say 100K USD per year payable on the 1st January every year. In this example, you know that on the 1st Jan that 100K USD will arrive in your USD bank account. You will want to convert that to Euros and to remove uncertainty from your business you might take out an FX Forward today to remove your currency risk. If in the next 9 months the dollar strengthens against the Euro then notionally you'll have lost out by taking out the forward. Similarly, you've notionally gained if the USD weakens against the EURO. The forward gives you the certainty you need to plan your business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9584a6f6554b2d2367ec417532961f0", "text": "e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today. A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging. Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bebec0aa0906edd17ddf97af3fa375b", "text": "What is the point of this? Can't I achieve the exact same effect and outcome by exchanging currency now and put that amount of USD in a bank account to gain some interest, then make the payment from one year from now? This is for companies, not individuals. Companies usually take loans, because they think they can make more money (e.g. 10%*) than the interest on the loan (e.g. 5%*). Putting money on a bank account to earn interest there would give them even less (e.g. 1%*). So with your option, instead of earning 10%* interest, they'd earn 1%* interest. If the cost of the currency forward is less than these 9%* difference, the forward saves them money. If they have excess cash and they don't know how to invest that money, your option may be preferable *Simple numbers chosen for simplicity, not accuracy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61613f9d8b9dd2efa33ee36ade8f02a6", "text": "\"To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the \"\"real economy\"\" is to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to \"\"sit on\"\" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "aaf385e8e4cec04116c0701d991180b7", "text": "I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance. 3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b33cbf727f004a084bf7f74b3a932a74", "text": "\"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, \"\"otherwiseyep\"\", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial \"\"root demand\"\" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just *decide* that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a \"\"credit event\"\" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle. If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates. This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on. Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain. In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks. So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies. Real money has ZERO counterparty risk. What is counterparty risk? It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt. Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's. So they can be real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "149c4682dfbc9647724e92e4509ee2da", "text": "Think of it this way: C + (-P) = forward contract. Work it out from there. Anyways, this stack is meant for professionals, not students, I think.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ad570b519c3229f5443070b43fbbf39", "text": "You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96e19b1eecb7bdc0b59c5bc4571733ce", "text": "I guess other than tradition and inflation, probably because the merchants want them. In the US, what currently costs $2.00 used to cost $0.10. So 75 years ago, those individual cents made a pretty bid difference. Inflation causes prices to go up, but doesn't get us to just change our currencies patterns. In your example, you are assuming that in an average day, the rounding errors you are willing to accept happen a couple of times. 2 or 3 cents here and there mean nothing to you. However to the merchant, doing hundreds or thousands of transactions per day, those few cents up and down mean quite a bit in terms of profit. To an individual, looking at a time frame more than a single day (because who only participates in economies for a single day) there are potentially millions of transactions in a lifetime, mean potentially giving away millions of dollars because they didn't want to wait. And as for the comment that people working each 3 cents every 10 seconds, I would assume at least some of the time when they are waiting for rounding errors, they are not at work getting paid. That concept is assuming that somebody is always willing to pay them for their time regardless of where that person is in the world; I have no facts and wild assumptions, but surely that can't be true for even a majority of workers. Finally, you should be happy if you happy to have an income high enough that you don't care about individual cents. But there are those business people who see opportunity in folks like you and profit greatly from it. I personally worry very much about who has my money; gov't gets paid to the penny and I expect returns to the penny. A super polite service employee who smiled a lot serving me a beer is getting all the rounding errors I have.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "769fedc5864efb06a210234aa369d097", "text": "Borrowing money from the Federal Reserve (or other central banks) requires full collateral, generally in terms of treasury bonds. In that sense it is only a source of liquidity - getting short term money by pledging guaranteed future cash flows, not random commercial loans. To get a dollar from FR today requires freezing a dollar that you already had. Private deposits, on the other hand, require only a keeping a fraction of them as reserves, so you can use the rest of the money for new loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8d1a7ed650bccb30e84e1f254b57628", "text": "\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "306f3a6fe8fd8857a8f456e4e684ea13", "text": "\"To expand a bit on @MSalters's answer ... When I read your question title I assumed that by \"\"retirement funds\"\" you meant target-date funds that are close to their target dates (say, the 2015 target fund). When I saw that you were referring to all target-date funds, it occurred to me that examining how such funds modify their portfolios over time would actually help answer your question. If you look at a near-term target fund you can see that a smaller percent is invested internationally, the same way a smaller percent is invested in stocks. It's because of risk. Since it's more likely that you will need some of the money soon, and since you'll be cashing out said money in US Dollars, it's risky to have too much invested in foreign currencies. If you need money that's currently invested in a foreign currency and that currency happens to be doing poorly against USD at the moment, then you'll lose money simply because you need it now. This is the same rationale that goes into target-date funds' moving from stocks to bonds over time. Since the value of a stock portfolio has a lot more natural volatility than the value of a bond portfolio, if you're heavily invested in stocks when you need to withdraw money, there's a higher probability that you'll need to cash out just when stocks happen to be doing relatively poorly. Being invested more in bonds around when you'll need your money is less risky. Similarly, being more invested in US dollars than in foreign currencies around when you'll need your money is also less risky.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2237029210f2414fe0ef52b4b015cee7", "text": "\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9440f6a0c8c21dafac732d0fc850d408", "text": "It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58da3db7d725927a0b0ee7ec22639054", "text": "I think you answered yourself. The rate difference is because of the base rates differences, and it's not worth moving money around because the rate conversions (even if the currency rates don't fluctuate) will eat up the difference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "209158c83940631e2c9f741f0da36157", "text": "As mentioned in several other answers, the main reason for high rates is to maximize profit. However, here is another, smaller effect: The typical flow of getting money from an ATM: Suppose you have a minute to consider the offer, then in that time the currency may drop or rise (which you can see from an external source of information). Therefore this opens a window for abuse. For real major currencies these huge switches are rare, but they do happen. And when 1 or 2 minor currencies are involved these switches are more common. Just looking at a random pair for today (Botswana Pula to Haitian Gourde) I immediately spotted a moment where the exchange rate jumped by more than 2 %. This may not be the best example, but it shows why a large margin is desirable. Note that this argument only holds for when the customer knows in advance what the exchange rate would be, for cases where it is calculated afterwards I have not found any valid excuse for such large margins (except that it allows them to offer other services at a lower price because these transaction).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5edb2b7684003ea4f01ab69a4c02e39", "text": "why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency. If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing. But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally. So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local. You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true. But then you have two risks. One risk you'll have anywhere: your investments may go down. The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency. If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you. That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes. Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments. As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally. That looks to be about 20% for Australia. So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash. That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency. It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical. But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8331b83bbbd50d34c1de1b1590da0a5", "text": "The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "479c8b6628202b3947d4a2c9b7c84bbf", "text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
d97ac382cc64c48761c4ce649bf19cd9
Should I invest in the world's strongest currency instead of my home currency?
[ { "docid": "605eb7aa548de18d74c5f4e178dd3731", "text": "First, currencies are not an investment; they are a medium of exchange; that is, you use currency to buy goods and services and/or investments. The goods and services you intend to buy in your retirement are presumably going to be bought in your country; to buy these you will need your country's currency. The investments you intend to buy now require the currency of whatever country they are located in. If you want to buy shares in Microsoft you need USD; if you want shares in BHP-Billiton you need AUD or GBP (It is traded on two exchanges), if you want property in Kuwait you need KWD and if you want bonds in your country you need IDR. When you sell these later to buy the goods and services you were saving for you need to convert from whatever currency you get for selling them into whatever currency you need to buy. When you invest you are taking on risk for which you expect to be compensated for - the higher the risk you take the better the returns had better be because there is always the chance that they will be negative, right down to losing it all if you are unlucky. There is no 100% safe investment; if you want to make sure you get full value for your money spend it all right now! If you invest overseas then, in addition to all the other investment risks, you are adding currency risk as well. That is, the risk that when you redeem your investments the overseas currency will have fallen relative you your currency. One of the best ways of mitigating risk is diversification; which allows the same return at a lower risk (or a higher return at the same risk). A pure equity portfolio is not diversified across asset classes (hopefully it is diversified across the equities). Equities are a high risk-high yield class; particularly in a developing economy like Indonesia. If you are very young with a decades long investment horizon this may be OK but even then, a diversified portfolio will probably offer better rewards at the same risk. Diversifying into local cash, bonds and property with a little foreign equities, bonds and property will serve you better than worrying about the strength of the IDR. Oh, and pay a professional for some real advice rather than listening to strangers on the internet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3041f3b2f3e082b53a5789066773d5b", "text": "Currency speculation is a very risky investment strategy. But when you are looking for which currency to denote your savings in, looking at the unit value is quite pointless. What is important is how stable the currency is in the long term. You certainly don't want a currency which is prone to inflation, because it means any savings denoted in that currency constantly lose purchasing power. Rather look for a currency which has a very low inflation rate or is even deflating. Another important consideration is how easy it is to exchange between your local currency and the currency you want to own. A fortune in some exotic currency is worth nothing when no local bank will exchange it into your local currency. The big reserve currencies like US Dollar, Euro, Pound Sterling and Japanes yen are usually safe bets, but there are regional differences which can be easily converted and which can't. When the political relations between your country and the countries which manage these currencies is unstable, this might change over night. To avoid these problems, rather invest into a diverse portfolio of commodities and/or stocks. The value of these kinds of investments will automatically adjust to inflation rate, so you won't need to worry about currency fluctuation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "615d936fbe8731c2a40bba364141b151", "text": "A currency that is strong right now is one that is expensive for you to buy. The perfect one would be a currency that is weak now but will get stronger; the worst currency is one that is strong today and gets weak. If a currency stays unchanged it doesn't matter whether it is weak or strong today as long as it doesn't get weaker / stronger. (While this advice is correct, it is useless for investing since you don't know which currencies will get weaker / stronger in the future). Investing in your own currency means less risk. Your local prices are usually not affected by currency change. If you safe for retirement and want to retire in a foreign country, you might consider in that country's currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fb7b6d8a5c9f61e3a60aebdd6f41562", "text": "The best thing is to diversify across multiple currencies. USD and EUR seem reliable. But not 100% reliable to keep all your investments in this types of currencies. Invest part of your savings in USD, part - in EUR, and part in your home country's currency. Apart from investing I recommend you to have certain sum in cash and certain on your bank account.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "d7541f07a95a913977a15cc8030734b8", "text": "\"I still don't understand this \"\"analysis.\"\" Even when the US became the world's largest economy in 1880, the British Pound remained the reserve currency of choice until the 1950s, some seventy years later! Investors prefer stability and property rights and the US has both, especially when considering the alternatives, i.e. Euro tax takings on bank deposits in Cyprus. What about the yuan? China may have recently surpassed US economic power, but it is very likely in the midst of a massive credit bubble. China has also been fudging some of their numbers and in many cases, chooses not to keep economic records at all. The fact that many Chinese elites themselves are buying property in Vancouver and the US as a safe harbor also does not bode well for their systemic problems IMO. I'm sticking with the dollar for now.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0f0da2c0e5a4bfa04bda19efad7eb01", "text": "There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe4513005bf90450c2695629c0f31560", "text": "Taking into account that you are in Cyprus, a Euro country, you should not invest in USD as the USA and China are starting a currency war that will benefit the Euro. Meaning, if you buy USD today, they will be worth less in a couple of months. As for the way of investing your money. Look at it like a boat race, starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 31st of December each year. There are a lot of boats in the water. Some are small, some are big, some are whole fleets. Your objective is to choose the fastest boat at any time. If you invest all of your money in one small boat, that might sink before the end of the year, you are putting yourself at risk. Say: Startup Capital. If you invest all of your money in a medium sized boat, you still run the risk of it sinking. Say: Stock market stock. If you invest all of your money in a supertanker, the risk of it sinking is smaller, and the probability of it ending first in the race is also smaller. Say: a stock of a multinational. A fleet is limited by it's slowest boat, but it will surely reach the shore. Say: a fund. Now investing money is time consuming, and you may not have the money to create your own portfolio (your own fleet). So a fund should be your choice. However, there are a lot of funds out there, and not all funds perform the same. Most funds are compared with their index. A 3 star Morningstar rated fund is performing on par with it's index for a time period. A 4 or 5 star rated fund is doing better than it's index. Most funds fluctuate between ratings. A 4 star rated fund can be mismanaged and in a number of months become a 2 star rated fund. Or the other way around. But it's not just luck. Depending on the money you have available, your best bet is to buy a number of star rated, managed funds. There are a lot of factors to keep into account. Currency is one. Geography, Sector... Don't buy for less than 1.000€ in one fund, and don't buy more than 10 funds. Stay away from Gold, unless you want to speculate (short term). Stay away from the USD (for now). And if you can prevent it, don't put all your eggs in one basket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6f1845980e14e2a771a1640c2189af8", "text": "\"A general principle in finance is that you shouldn't stick with an investment or situation just because it's how you're currently invested. You can ask yourself the following question to help you think it through: If, instead, I had enough GBP to buy 20000 CHF, would I think it was a good idea to do so? (I'm guessing the answer is probably \"\"no.\"\") This way of thinking assumes you can actually make the exchange without giving someone too big of a cut. With that much money on the line, be sure to shop around for a good exchange rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf5b32f35f7abee59654d27bc3adecab", "text": "There are legitimate multi currency mutual funds/efts. But I don't think their rate of return will produce the extra money you're looking for any faster than any other kind of investment with comparable risks. To make money fast, you have to accept nontrivial risk of losing money fast, which isn't what you seem to have in mind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71973b471b6779c847e78549ccae7fb6", "text": "Rather than screwing around with foreign currencies, hop over to Germany and open an account at the first branch of Deutsche or Commerzbank you see. If the euro really does disintegrate, you want to have your money in the strongest country of the lot. Edit: and what I meant to say is that if the euro implodes, you'll end up with deutschmarks, which, unlike the new IEP, will *not* need to devalue. (And in the meantime, you've still got euros, so you have no FX risk.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b449602794cc259348a97fddc5cf7f8", "text": "From a purely financial standpoint, you should invest using whatever dollars get you the best rate. The general rule of thumb that I've come across is that if you are making another person/company change your money into another nation's currency, they will likely charge a higher exchange rate than you could get yourself. However, it really depends on your situation, how easy it is for you to exchange money, what your exchange rate is, and what your broker is charging you to exchange to USD (if on the off chance this is truly nothing, then stick with CAD). Don't worry about the strength of the USD to CAD too much because converting your money before you make purchases doesn't allow you to buy more shares. For the vast majority of people, trying to work with national currency exchange rates makes things unnecessarily complex.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f8d64a7173e83e85807bda067af93aa", "text": "If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f73dc803fba81d5dfb602b8038cccdb", "text": "It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aaf385e8e4cec04116c0701d991180b7", "text": "I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance. 3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "584e97bf18950c72068556fa29320d5b", "text": "You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be5a343ff06889ca387adaed1aed3f15", "text": "From an investor's standpoint, if the value of crude oil increases, economies that are oil dependent become more favourable (oil companies will be more profitable). Therefore, investors will find that country's currency more attractive in the foreign exchange market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b58296e546e1efce9613746b1a82bd7", "text": "Yes. But the question is do you want to have gold? If you are going to buy gold anyway, and if you can get a good conversion rate between USD:gold, then why not? If you are looking to use your earnings on things that you cannot buy using gold, then I'd recommend you take USD instead. Have fun!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e27b4d067c78c5636685afe87425080c", "text": "No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51876fb7fa8f2f1b1c5fc654650a5ef4", "text": "The other obvious suggestion I guess is to buy cheap stocks and bonds (maybe in a dollar denominated fund). If the US dollar rises you'd then get both the fund's US gains plus currency gains. However, no guarantee the US dollar will rise or when. Perhaps a more prudent approach is to simply diversify. Buy both domestic and foreign stocks and bonds. Rebalance regularly.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
7cb38fbfe4b53ef357268c523da58457
Is it possible for me to keep my credit card APR at 0% permanently?
[ { "docid": "8b9620a800b6f6147c6c93aeefef92c5", "text": "If you pay your statement balance in full before the due date you will never pay a cent in interest no matter what your interest rate is.* In fact, I don't even know what my interest rates are. Credit card companies offer this sort of thing in the hopes you will spend more than you can afford to pay completely in those first 15 months. * Unless you use a cash advance, with those you will accrue interest immediately upon receiving the cash sometimes with an additional fee on top.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e98a39641e112d9ac6b9f797f28319c9", "text": "\"Banks are in it to make money. But they're expected to provide a social good which powers our economy: secure money storage (bank accounts) and cashless transactions (credit/debit cards). And the government does not subsidize this. In fact, banks are being squeezed. Prudent customers dislike paying the proper cost of their account's maintenance (say, a $50/year fee for a credit card, or $9/month for a checking account) - they want it free. Meanwhile government is pretty aggressive about preventing \"\"fine print\"\" trickery that would let them recover costs other ways. However there isn't much sympathy for consumers who make trivial mistakes - whether they be technical (overdraft, late fee) or money-management mistakes (like doing balance transfers or getting fooled by promotional interest rates). So that's where banks are able to make their money: when people are imprudent. The upshot is that it's hard for a bank to make money on a prudent careful customer; those end up getting \"\"subsidized\"\" by the less-careful customers who pay fees and buy high-margin products like balance transfers. And this has created a perverse incentive: banks make more money when they actively encourage customers to be imprudent. Here, the 0% interest is to make you cocky about running up a balance, or doing balance transfers at a barely-mentioned fee of 3-5%. They know most Americans don't have $500 in the bank and you won't be able to promptly pay it off right before the 0% rate ends. (or you'll forget). And this works - that's why they do it. By law, you already get 0% interest on purchases when you pay the card in full every month. So if that's your goal, you already have it. In theory, the banks collect about 1.5% from every transaction you do, and certainly in your mind's eye, you'd think that would be enough to get by without charging interest. That doesn't work, though. The problem is, such a no-interest card would attract people who carry large balances. That would have two negative impacts: First the bank would have to spend money reborrowing, and second, the bank would have huge exposure to credit card defaults. The thing to remember is the banks are not nice guys and are not here to serve you. They're here to use you to make money, and they're not beneath encouraging you to do things that are actually bad for you. Caveat Emptor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8402cd85b94b8bfaaa6a10c0042a438d", "text": "No. There is no incentive for the card issuer to permanently loan you money for free (Even though they make a small amount of money with every transaction). Yes, there are many credit cards that offer introductory 0% APR, often lasting for a year, some even two years. In theory, you could keep applying for new cards with these terms, and continually transfer the balance to the new card (Though you would probably incur a fee for doing so).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18669cc27884e61802f45f91344c1972", "text": "Banks don't care that you are responsible cardholder. They care to make money. Interest rates are basically 0% by government policy and the banks charge their responsible cardholders 20% interest rates. Think about that for one second, and realize they really do not care about your ability to avoid paying interest, they only need you to 'slip up' one month during your entire lifetime to make a profit from you. It is in their interest for you to get into a spending habit, from 0% promo rates, so that eventually a frivolous purchase or life changing event causes a balance to stay on the card for over one month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d81d8e93b552b7855ff1f70f96b57b5b", "text": "No. The intro rate is a gambit by the bank - they accept losing money in the short term but expect to gain money in the long term when your intro is over and you (hopefully) start paying interest. There's not much in it for them if you never get around to paying interest. Same can be said for people who close the card after their intro period, but that's different - the bank is correctly expecting that most people won't bother.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "9b0ab23855473235675f7b8af2abbde0", "text": "It's a good idea to have some emergency money so I would propose a plan that keeps some in your savings: If the 0% goes away, then consider paying it off, but by that time hopefully you have built up your savings a bit more. Also consider the ability to move the balance from the 2% cards to the 0% one, if that is possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4d9b4643ff543beead589bc07cf7501", "text": "\"I think so. I am doing this with our furniture. It doesn't cost me any more money to pay right now than it will to pay over the course of 3 years, and I can earn interest on the money I didn't spend. But know this: they aren't offering 0%, they are deferring interest for 3 years. If you pay it off before then great, if you don't you will owe all the accumulated interest. The key with these is that you always pay it, and on time. Miss a payment and you get hosed. If you don't pay on time you will owe the interest that is being deferred. They will also be financing this through a third party (like a major bank) and that company is now \"\"doing business with you\"\" which means in the US they can call you and solicit new services. I am willing to deal with those trade offs though, plus, as you say, you can always pay it off. WHY THEY DO IT (what is in it for them...) A friend of mine works for a major bank that often finances these deals here is how they work. Basically, banks do this to generate leads for their divisions that do cold calls. If you are a high credit, high income customer you go to a classic bank and request cash, if you are building credit or have bad credit, you go to a \"\"financial services\"\" branch. If you tend to finance things like cars and furniture, you get more cold calls.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a60c618fd71bab36039cec4b9b3479", "text": "\"I would think it extremely unlikely that an issuer would cancel your card for having an ADB of approximately zero. The issuer charges the vendor that accepts a card a percentage of the transaction (usually up to ~3%, AMEX is generally higher) - so they are making money even if you carry no balance on your card (the specific language for various vendor-side (acceptor) credit card agreements boils down to \"\"we are essentially giving you, the vendor, a short-term loan and you will pay us for it). This why you see credit-card minimum purchase amounts at places like hot-dog stands - they're getting nailed on the percentage. This is also why, when given the choice between \"\"Debit or Credit\"\" for a particular card, I choose where to put the hit on the company I like less - the retailer or the bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b48baf42307cd1e28e47faa2d310556", "text": "Your utilization ratio history is irrelevant to its impact on your credit score. If you run up 80% of your utilization In January, then pay it back to 10% in March, your score in March will reflect the new reduced ratio with no memory of the 80% utilization last month. With that said, don't go around overspending just because you have 0% apr for a little bit. Spend what you would spend with cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bc46b28be1a7748e85a0ea7563b7e8", "text": "Do you know how many people end up with an 18-21% rate on their credit card? They started off with low teaser rates. There was an article about it recently on Yahoo. Mainly this comes from a lack of discipline, or an unforeseen emergency. However, lets assume, that you are a bit uncommon and have iron discipline. It comes down to a math question. What is the rate on your student loan? I am going to assume 6%, and lets say that you are now paying interest. So there is 7 months between now an then, you would pay $140 (4000 * .06/12 * 7) in interest if you left it on the student loan. Typically there is not really a free lunch with the zero percent interest rate CC. They often charge a 3% balance transfer fee, so you would pay that on the entire amount, about $120. Is it worth the $20? I would say not. However, those simple calculations are not really correct. Since you would have to pay the CC $588.6/month to take care of this, you have to shrink the balance on the student loan to do a true apples to apples comparison. So doing a little loan amortization, you can retire $4000 on the student loan only paying $583/month, and paying a total of $80.40 in interest. So it would cost you money to do what you are suggesting if there is a 3% transfer fee. Even if there is no transfer fee, you only save about $80 in interest. If it was me, I would direct my energy in other areas, like trying to bring in more money to make this student loan go away ASAP. Oh and GO STEELERS!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59e5ecb0fe258452782762d4a7e06459", "text": "Even if you can get a credit card with a $0 limit, that doesn't necessarily mean that the charges won't succeed. Some of my credit cards have gone over limit by a significant amount (e.g. 140% of limit) without any transactions being declined. The limit just means that the bank is allowed to decline the transaction, but they are also allowed to approve it anyway. So basically what you would have is a credit card where any transaction can always be declined or approved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dded85e983b57d4276a66a7e975a4389", "text": "Yes, 0% APR = no interest. APR = Annual Percentage Rate. As in, the lender gets an annual percentage returned to them for lending you money. This is the opposite of APY, which is Annual Percentage Yield, or the money that an investment yields.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5fd677f5148dd5e154d02cf4ee19ad1", "text": "Dude- my background is in banking specifically dealing with these scenarios. Take my advice-look for a balance transfer offer-credit card at 0%. Your cost of capital is your good credit, this is your leverage. Why pay 4.74% when you can pay 0%. Find a credit card company with a balance transfer option for 0%. Pay no interest, and own the car outright. Places to start; check the mail, or check your bank, or check local credit unions. Some credit unions are very relaxed for membership, and ask if they have zero percent balance transfers. Good Luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5af1dcf797340fb21e09e8aeffc86b22", "text": "it is possible that if you do not accept the offer, they will try offering you an even lower rate. if they offered you close to 0%, you could start carrying a balance and find a better use for the cash you would have spent paying it off. there are plenty of investments with a guaranteed return of over 0%. personally, i am using a 0% offer from one of my cards to invest in the stock market. i might lose that bet, but on average over the last 10 years, i have not. a pretty safe bet would be paying down your mortgage, or buying a cd that matures when the offer ends. that said, even a 10k$ balance might only pay you around 300$. is that worth the hassle to you?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffb06ce27518d327cca2437728abe156", "text": "Welcome to the world of personal finance. IMO, you are heading for trouble. To answer your question, the APR is the annual percentage rate, or what you pay to borrow money from the CC issuer. For example, if you charge $100, and the bill comes, and you pay $100 on or before the due date you pay nothing. If you pay the minimum payment, which would be around $15, you would then borrow $85 (100-15) and pay interest on that amount. The next month's balance would be 85 + any new charges + interest. The interest in this case can be estimated as follows: 85*.199/12 = 1.41. For your information that is a very high interest rate especially given the current market for borrowed money. Many people become saddled with debilitating debt starting off just like you are planning. If we were friends, I would implore you not to get a CC, instead save up and pay for things with cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6904306c85387acaee0b30433944e2a0", "text": "Look for offers for 0% (or low) APR on balance transfers. It is more likely to get a promotional APR on balance transfer, than to lower the APR you already have. Of course, try to pay off the balance as long as you're in the period of the promotion, because otherwise you'll end up paying the high rate again. If you cannot get such an offer (low credit etc) - then just try to pay off ASAP and start rebuilding your credit, not much workarounds there. BTW: When you consider the balance transfer promotions - look at 3 things: The promotion period - when it ends, so that you'd know how much time you have to pay it off. The balance transfer fee - usually the balance transfer itself is not free, and you pay 3-5% on the transfer. If you have 0% APR for 12 months, it makes it effectively 5% APR (for the 5% fee), if the period is lesser - the APR is higher. Take that into the account. The APR after the promotion, in case you can't pay off in that time frame.", "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": "" }, { "docid": "175eb77b00771165926f3d2ac67c4b6d", "text": "I think is an excellent idea. Use free money or almost free to do a lump sump payment. My recommendation is to have a reminder to pay credit card before, almost finishing, the 0% APR period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a5c0c6c03ff7beba4df4dde569f0efe", "text": "\"I've done exactly what you are describing and it was a great move for me. A few years back I had two credit cards. One had a $6000 balance and a fairly high interest rate that I was making steady payments to (including interest). The other was actually tied to a HELOC (home equity line of credit) whose interest rate was fixed to \"\"prime\"\", which was very low at the time, I think my effective rate on the card was around 3%. So, I pulled out one of the \"\"cash advance checks\"\" from the HELOC account and paid off the $6000 balance. Then I started making my monthly payments against the balance on the HELOC, and paid it off a bit more quickly and with less overall money spent because I was paying way less interest. Another, similar, tactic is to find a card that doesn't charge fees for balance transfers and that has a 0% interest rate for the first 12 months on transferred balances. I am pretty sure they are out there. Open an account on that card, transfer the balance to it, and pay it down within 12 months. And, try not to use the card for anything else if you can help it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af4c4656175187a75c39d3eddf6c605b", "text": "I also had a student loan and glad you are taking a good look on interest rate as it really makes a huge difference. One of the strategies I followed was since my credit improved as I stepped out of school. I took advantage of a good 0 percent credit card. I applied for discover and got a decent credit limit. There are 2 particular things you are looking for in a credit card in this situation Usually the initial $0 transaction charge is only for a couple of months so ensure you take advantage of that. What is the benefit: Imagine being able to pay off that higher interest rate balance with 0% and not have to worry about it immediately. That way you save on the interest you would be paying and stress as well Watch out for: Although you have to ensure that you do payoff the money you paid through the 0 percent credit card ( which may have been put off for a year or even 15 months or so) other wise you may have to pay it all at once as the offer is expiring. Note: for credit cards ensure to note when the 0% is expiring as that is usually not mentioned on the statement and you may have to call the customer service. I was in a similar situation and was able to pay it all off fairly quickly. I am sure you will as well.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
9d7e9298dd0dd24c06c2731087ef4d0f
First job: Renting vs get my parents to buy me a house
[ { "docid": "c111c0522cc65286db180692e724cb82", "text": "Rent. You have no idea whether you will still be in the same part of the country five years from now; you may not even be in the same country. A house is a boat anchor you really do not need or want at this time. It's also a set of obligations you may not want to take on yet. And buying is not automatically more financially advantageous than renting, when you remember that money not going into the house can go into your retirement plan or other investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5569b2e4758a058d776eaa4895d53251", "text": "There is a mathematical way to determine the answer, if you know all the variables. (And that's a big if.) For example, suppose you rent for 4 years and the price of rent never increases. The total amount you will have paid is: 600*48 = 28,800. If you currently have money sitting in the bank earning only a negligible amount of interest, and you can purchase the house for X, and then sell it for exactly what you paid 4 years from now, and you have 0 expenses otherwise, then purchasing it will save you 28,800 compared to renting. Obviously that makes some assumptions which are not possible. Now you need to calculate the variables: All of these variables can drastically effect the profit margin, and unfortunately they will vary greatly depending on your country, location, and the condition of the home. Once you estimate each of the variables, it's important to realize that if you purchase, your profit or loss can swing unexpectedly in either direction based on appreciation/depreciation which can be difficult to predict, in part because it is somewhat tied to the overall macro-economy of where you live (state or country). On the flip side, if you rent, it's pretty easy to calculate your cost as approximately 28,800 over 4 years. (Perhaps slightly more for modest rent increases.) Lastly, if you elect to purchase the house, realize that you're investing that money in real estate. You could just as easily rent and invest that money elsewhere, if you want to choose a more aggressive or conservative investment with your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "396cf4f9e48af1691a4698047bf15b23", "text": "\"Seriously. I can't tell you how many times I hear this scenario: Kid graduates college; kid runs out and signs lease on apartment \"\"because that's what you do\"\"**; kid complains that he's in financial trouble and can't make ends meet. Housemate sharing is most famously displayed in hit shows like Big Bang Theory or New Girl. They get a much nicer place with better furnishings for way less money. (However don't hook up with close neighbors or friends of other housemates, they do it for awkward laughs but it really results in awkward departure.) It's more financially responsible. It means the rest of your financial life will have more slack. And when you move, obviously, it's no big deal, you just give all the notice you can, and go to the next town and find another housemate share. ** I suspect a very significant factor is bringing home dates. Well, there's nothing sexy about taking your date to McDonalds because you can't afford anything more. See those shows... it works fine, you just have to be sensible about housemate choices. Pick housemates who view things the same way, and who themselves are invested in making the shared space attractive, and aren't going to mind some ...activities... once in awhile.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00bc45f4513a8027b4136f5ed7c54c71", "text": "\"Say the price is $200K. Would I, as a real estate investor, want to buy such a house? If the rent is $600, that's $7200/yr. \"\"the local property tax rate is levied on the tax base, and the applicable tax rate ranges from 0.40% to 0.76%\"\" so, I'll assume .5%, just $1,000. There are rules of thumb that say half the rent will go to maintenance and other costs, if that seems high, say just $2000. We're left with $4000/yr. Less than 2% on the $200K investment. Italian bonds are yielding 8%. As an investor, if I couldn't get more than $2000/mo gross rent, I would not buy the house for $200K. As a parent, I'd have the money invested, have $16K/yr of income and help support you without taking all the risk the real estate investor has. Note: your question and my answer are in dollars, but I acknowledge the Italy tag, and used Italy property tax. My tax is 1.6% of home value in my US city. Edit: per the comment below, the 8% is incorrect. The return on the house purchase doesn't change, of course, but the safe yields are not that high, currently, 1%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad7dd411b78ed106d727b35e9a098663", "text": "Having recently been given basically the same question it hinges on a few major factors. What does your apartment provide (e.g. heating, internet/etc)? My (personal) example. With my numbers (which includes taxes, insurance estimates, minor repairs to home as needed), also ignoring all costs that are shared (e.g. food, internet, car insurance, etc), I am only making a difference around $450 per month. In 5 years I would save ($450 * 12 * 5) $27,000. However I also have to pay costs for buying the house (transfer deed, laywer fees, home inspections, etc) which in my case cost around $3000. Not to mention selling a home has some costs (I think around $1500+ in my area) as well as the realitor taking a cut (which I also think is around 2.5% = $7,225. So we can probably estimate you would lose around $15000 at most, buying and selling the home when all final costs come in. Which means in my case I would at most be saving around $12,000... probably less (assuming I did not miss anything). So basically 12,000/(12*5) = $200 per month saved. TLDR: I don't think its worthwhile, because there is a lot of risks involved, and houses tend to require a lot of extra work/money. With apartments you have little/no risk, and can freely leave at the end.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62e19fc212bb3018ffc2b2faf371bbf9", "text": "No one has considered the tax write off at the end of the year? Will the house be in the parent's name or his, and can one of them take a write off for taxes and interest at the end of each year? On a small salary this may mean he has no tax liability for the four years, and can possibly make up the extra buying costs.... also, look at the comps in the area for the past five years and see if home values have increased and turnover rate for the area will tell you if people are buying in that area...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd333f8f311aa1f844a430926d5d8df7", "text": "Firstly, I'm going to do what you said and analyze your question taking your entire family's finances into account. That means giving you an answer that maximizes your family's total wealth rather then just your own. If instead of that your question really was, should I let my parents buy me a house and live rent free, then obviously you should do that (assuming your parents can afford it and you aren't taking advantage people who need to be saving for retirement and not wasting it on a 25 y/o who should be able to support him / herself). This is really an easy question assuming you are willing to listen to math. Goto the new york times rent vs buy calculator and plug in the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html Firstly, if you do what you say you want to do buy the house all cash and live there for 4 years, it would be the equivalent of paying 1151 / month in rent once you factor in transaction costs, taxes, opportunity costs, etc. Take a look at the calculator, it's very detailed. This is why you should never buy houses all cash (unless its a negotiating tactic in a hot market, and even then you should refi after). Mortgage rates are super low right now, all that money sitting in the house is appreciating at maybe the rate of inflation (assuming the house value isn't going down which it can very easily do if you don't maintain it, another cost you need to factor in). Instead, you could be invested in the stock market getting 8%, the lost opportunity cost there is huge. I'm not even considering your suggestion that you hang onto the house after you move out in 4 years. That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year. Figure you'll need to spend 1% / year (I'm being optimistic here) on maintanence / vacancy (and I'm not even considering your time dealing with tenants). Plus another 1% or so on property tax. That's 4K / year, so your total profit is 3200 which is a return of only 1.6% on your 200K. You can get 1% in an ally savings account for comparison. Really you are much better off investing in a diversified portfolio. You only need 6 months living expenses in cash, so unless your family is ridicuouly wealthy (In which case you should be asking your financial planner what to do and not stack exchange), I have no idea why your parents have 200K sitting around in a savings account earning 0. Open a vanguard account for them and put that money in VTI and your family will be much better off 5 years from now then if you buy that money pit (err house). If risk is a concern, diversify more. I have some money invested with a robo advisor. They do charge a small fee, but it's set it and forget it with auto diversification and tax loss harvesting. Bottom line is, get that money invested in something, having it sitting in a bank account earning 0 is probably the second worst thing you could do with next to buying this house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18200e84958930b5d0301287d46e7338", "text": "\"I would strongly try to influence circumstances so that buying is feasible. That means: Buy something where it is likely that you can resell it at the same price or even higher - or, at the least for significantly more than \"\"total cost of ownership - rent payed elsewhere\"\". For example, if it is in an area where you have good reasons to assume that prices will go up in the future. Or if the object needs refurbishing and you are sure that you can do it yourself. You will, no doubt, sell it later. You will near certainly not live in such a small house for all time. So the question of \"\"whether\"\" you will sell it is moot. So, when you have a potential house to buy, you will have to calculate everything very carefully, with an estimate of how long you will stay. You need to make your calculation as optimistic/pessimistic as you like (this is more a question of your character). Whatever calculation comes out better, wins. It goes without saying that if you miscalculate (for example, overestimating your ability or time to refurbish; forgetting to calculate non-obvious costs of refurbishing; being surprised by hidden damage to the object; misjudging the price development in the area) you run a considerable risk. So, the question of whether you are able to calculate the risks correctly will need to influence the calculation itself (add 20% or whatever risk buffer if you are not sure, etc.). But the potential is for you to have a very good start in the whole financial game of your life. Your house will likely be for a considerable time the biggest single part of costs in your life, and getting that under control from the get-go is a huge benefit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4900f448de7cf8f48a84a6a8aff850b2", "text": "Personally, I started renting out because I couldn't afford to buy a place but now I'm quite comfortably past that point. My three main issues are: These views aren't for everyone but I find it hard to seriously contemplate dealing with 2 while 1 and 3 are issues. To be honest, I found that I learned a lot sharing a place for the first few years and still enjoying it now. I don't really think you should bring it down to a financial issue unless your decision is already made.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65cbf22276b93cd7390a5cf62b6ac436", "text": "As everyone is saying, this depends on a lot of variables. However... I had my dad help me with the downpayment on my house. In my case, the cost of mortgage payment and all maintenance expenses is still lower than paying rent. If I sell my house and walk away from the closing office with just $1 then I've still come out ahead compared to renting. The New York Times has a fantastic tool figure out if it's a good idea to buy vs. rent. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 It's asks all the relevant questions, and then it tells you how cheap rent would have to be make it the better option.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "d1b2f77f6f2746a5125e75319fd7a577", "text": "3 years ago I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question by a fellow blogger in my state. What I focused on was the way banks qualify you for a loan, a percentage for the housing cost, and a higher number that also comprises all other debt. If the goal is speed-to-purchase, you make minimum payments on the student loan, and save for the $100K downpayment as fast as you can. The question back to you is whether the purchase is your priority, and how debt averse you are. I'd caution, if you work for a company with a matched 401(k), I'd still deposit to the match, but no more. Personal finance is just that, personal. We don't know your entire situation, your current rental expenses vs your total condo cost when you buy. If you are in a location where renting costs far more than your cost of ownership, Ben might change his mind a bit. If the reverse is true, you're living a college student's lifestyle with a room costing $400/mo sharing a house with friends, I'll back off and say to pay the loan and save until you can't tolerate the situation. You'll find there are few situations that have a perfect answer without having all the details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "479c8b6628202b3947d4a2c9b7c84bbf", "text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"", "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": "fe2aca48fc1afdc119c92468c2111de1", "text": "\"The golden rule is \"\"Pay yourself first.\"\" This means that you should have some form of savings plan set up, preferably a monthly automatic withdrawal that comes out the day after your pay is deposited. 10% is a reasonable number to start with. You are in a wonderful situation because you are thinking about this 10-15 years before most of us do. Use this to your advantage. You are also in a good situation if you can defer the purchase of the house (assuming prices don't rise drastically in the next few years -- which they might.) If your home situation is acceptable, then sit down with the parents and present a plan. Something along the lines of: I'd like to move out and start my life. However, it would be advantageous to stay here for a few years to build up a down payment and reserve. I'm happy to help out with expenses, but do need a couple years of rent-free support to get started. Then go into monk mode for one year. It's doable, and you can save a lot of cash. Then you're on the road to freedom.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfe28ac207fb5729bfd3a25165f99c42", "text": "You earn $75,000 yearly and saved $30,000 while living at home, for two years, rent-free. I am assuming you have been making good money for at least 2 years. How is it possible you only put away $30,000 on $150,000 of income? Were you giving something to your parents each week as rent, so they don't lose their home? Second, if you're not sure if you will be relocated in a year or two it makes no sense to buy. House prices won't spike like they have in the past any time soon. In one year, you can save another $30,000 without suffering since you live rent free. Many couples don't even make $75,000 and they got a mortgage, 2 kids and car payments.", "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": "de88ac28eeb99ef348f03fb8ac241146", "text": "is it a smart thing for an entry level employee with a basic pay to buy a property on debt ? This is opinion based and can't be conclusively answered by others. Only you can make the choice. Their reasoning is that, since I am paying for their house rent right now(I have been doing this ever since I got into graduate school), I could divert it to pay for the loan while getting a property in return If I understand this, you are currently NRI [as you are working in Japan], you would like to take a home loan in India and buy a property in India. In the current scenario, the EMI towards home loan do not equate to the Rent as property prices have gone up in most places. In 2002 - 2007, there was a time of low interest rates and low property prices, that along with tax breaks made it cheaper to buy than rent. Also note that since you are NRI, you do not get any income tax rebate on interest paid. If you buy please ensure that all the EMI's are paid from NRE account. This would in future help you repatriate funds out of India, if you plan to sell the house. But I am scared of getting into debt so early in my career. If I commit myself like that, it might make me less courageous in making career changes till I finish paying off that debt. This is a valid concern, if you need to pursue further studies, or take a break for a change in career, it would make it difficult. Also note there are additional costs of buying a house, apart from EMI, there property tax, if you staying in society, a monthly maintenance etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "039cc579a85a6ad914607b922112d2e7", "text": "A point that hasn't been mentioned is whether paying down the mortgage sooner will get you out of unnecessary additional costs, such as PMI or a lender's requirement that you carry flood insurance on the outstanding mortgage balance, rather than the actual value/replacement cost of the structures. (My personal bugbear: house worth about $100K, while the bare land could be sold for about twice that, so I'm paying about 50% extra for flood insurance.) May not apply to your loan-from-parents situation, but in the general case it should be considered. FWIW, in your situation I'd probably invest the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15f8ac47cd161d2a2b55ed104b4c581f", "text": "The biggest red flag is the fact that your parents may lose their house. There are multiple parts of the decision. The red flag comes in because you are stretching your finances to the max to afford the house you are interested in. Buying down the interest rate makes some sense depending on how long you plan on staying, but not a a way to afford house X. Of course a bigger down payment will also influence the size of the house. You are also buying something in case your parents need a place to live. What happens if that never occurs? You now have something bigger than you need. You are mixing investments and housing. There is no guarantee that you will even break-even on the house as a investment. It can take several years to make back the closing costs involved in buying and selling a house, based solely on stable price and your monthly payments. If the price drops you might never make the money back. You might be better off renting what you need now or waiting until the current house is lost and then renting what you need then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3034fffe2070ee8dac760c96a48e0dd4", "text": "Another reason, and to me the main reason not to buy a house if you're in your early 20s (regardless of your income), is mobility. If you rent, you can move pretty much whenever you want after the first year of your rental lease is up, even before then in some cases. If your fiancee finishes school and gets a great job offer in another city or state, you can move there pretty quickly. When you own a house, that is much harder to do. Your having two kids makes it harder in either case, but at this point in your lives you really don't know where your future will take you, geographically speaking, and renting gives you the option of moving easily if you have to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe73ab1c09979528e333f386a0bfffa7", "text": "most of the people who lurk in money.se will probably tell you to spend as little as possible on a car, but that is a really personal decision. since you live with your parents, you can probably afford to waste a lot of money on a car. on the other hand, you already have a large income so you don't really have the normal graduate excuses for deferring student loans and retirement savings. for the sake of other people in a less comfortable position, here is a more general algorithm for making the decision:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd45428a5440e0c854325bd463132338", "text": "Altough this may vary a lot depending on where you live and your actual finance, here what convinced me buying a home instead of renting : Other benefits :", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4a0faa381737651673d571cb03dcf9", "text": "\"My education on this topic at this age range was a little more free-form. We were given a weeklong project in the 6th grade, which I remember pretty clearly: Fast forward 6 years (we were 12). You are about to be kicked out of your parents' house with the clothes on your back, $1,000 cash in your pocket, your high school diploma, and a \"\"best of luck\"\" from your parents. That's it. Your mission is to not be homeless, starving and still wearing only the clothes on your back in 3 months. To do this, you will find an apartment, a job (you must meet the qualifications fresh out of high school with only your diploma; no college, no experience), and a means of transportation. Then, you'll build a budget that includes your rent, estimated utilities, gasoline (calculated based on today's prices, best-guess fuel mileage of the car, and 250% of the best-guess one-way distance between home and job), food (complete nutrition is not a must, but 2000cal/day is), toiletries, clothing, and anything else you want or need to spend your paycheck or nest egg on. Remember that the laundromat isn't free, and neither is buying the washer/dryer yourself. Remember most apartments aren't furnished but do have kitchen appliances, and you can't say you found anything on the side of the road. The end product of your work will be a narrative report of the first month of your new life, a budget for the full 3 months, plus a \"\"continuing\"\" budget for a typical month thereafter to prove you're not just lasting out the 3 months, and all supporting evidence for your numbers, from newspaper clippings to in-store mailers (the Internet and e-commerce were just catching on at the time, Craigslist and eBay didn't exist yet, and not everyone had home Internet to begin with). Extra Credit: Make your budget work with all applicable income and sales taxes. Extra Extra Credit: Have more than your original $1000 in the bank at the end of the 3 months, after the taxes in the Extra Credit. This is a pretty serious project for a 12-year-old. Not only were we looking through the classified ads and deciphering all the common abbreviations, we were were taking trips to the grocery store with shopping lists, the local Wal-Mart or Target, the mall, even Goodwill. Some students had photos of their local gas station's prices, to which someone pointed out that their new apartment would be on the other side of town where gas was more expensive (smart kid). Some students just couldn't make it work (usually the mistakes were to be expected of middle-class middle-schoolers, like finding a job babysitting and stretching that out full-time, only working one job, buying everything new from clothes to furniture, thinking you absolutely need convenience items you can do without, and/or trying to buy the same upscale car your dad takes to work), though most students were able to provide at least a plausible before-tax budget. A few made the extra credit work, which was a lot of extra credit, because not only were you filling out a 1040EZ for your estimated income taxes, you were also figuring FICA and Social Security taxes which even some adults don't know the rates for, and remember, no Internet. Given that the extra-extra credit required you to come out ahead after taxes (good luck), I can't remember that anyone got that far. The meta-lesson that we all learned? Life without a college education is rough.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7efcc9ce455dbede53c896dffa0d409", "text": "Buying is not always better than renting, even if you aren't mobile! That depends on local market conditions. If you're investing the money reasonably you may do as well as or better than the house-buyer, and your funds will be tremendously more liquid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcc3acd371bdd4deaee29dc8a8fd546a", "text": "Yes, one is certainly better than the other. Which one depends on your priorities and the interest and tax rates on your student loan, your savings, and your (future) mortgage plus how much you can afford to save and still enjoy the lifestyle you want as well as how soon you want to move out. Basically, you havn't given enough information.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
77b418003dd7c51f48bcf0f507665236
How much money should I lock up in my savings account?
[ { "docid": "6145724be4af636f752ceb0e691717ba", "text": "Firstly well done on building a really sold base of savings. An emergency fund needs to have two key characteristics: Be enough to get you through a typical emergency event (often seen as approx. ~6 months’ salary in your style of situation assuming you have no dependents etc) Be liquid and available to you instantly if an emergency arises Once you have decided how much you will need for 1), you then generally find the best interest available on an instant access savings account and leave it there. It's important to note that because you need it very liquid and very secure you will basically never make (nor should you expect to make) any sizeable rate of interest on your emergency fund. Once this is done, whatever left should be invested in an asset/mix of assets that best fit your risk profile - of which long term bonds are a completely legitimate option, but it's hard to say without knowing more about your long term aims/liabilities/job market etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "410e921ef58c3b8de593b476d2324dea", "text": "One issue which I don't see addressed in the answers so far is how to structure bank accounts to get the highest return possible. What you're describing sounds like a certificate of deposit (CD): 'ranging from 1% for 9 months to 2.3% for 5 years' There is a concept which was once more common called a CD Ladder, which still allows you to access your money, while also giving you the highest interest rate offered by the bank. To set one up you divide your account into 5 equal parts, then open 5 CDs with different periods (1-5 years). Each time a new CD matures (once a year), you purchase another 5 year CD with those funds, plus any new money you want to save. Thus you're getting a higher and higher rate, until all of your accounts are earning the 5 year CD rate, and you're never more than a year away from getting money out of the account if a need comes up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "151faa283ddf874bd693bfc1b69b0d06", "text": "No, don't bother. You need to decide what you are saving for, and how much risk you are prepared to take. It would make sense if you wanted the money only in x years, and couldn't afford to lose say 20% or more if the stock market crashed the day before you needed the cash. Typically if you are about to retire and buy an annuity, you want to protect your capital. This isn't you. At 28, you might be saving for a wedding, a deposit on a house, possibly for school fees, or for eventual retirement. It doesn't sound like you need to get back exactly 24k in July 2022. Keep the 6 months expenses in accounts that you can withdraw from at short notice. Some of this in a current account, some might be in a savings account that doesn't pay interest if you make withdrawals. After that, I'd stick most of the rest in stock market tracker funds, but you might go for actively managed funds instead (ask another question and take professional advice, there will presumably be local tax considerations too), and add in most of your monthly savings too. These should beat the 2.3% over the 5 years, and you can liquidate them easily if you want to buy a house. If there is a recession and a stock market dip, you presumably have the flexibility to hold on to them longer for the economy to recover. And if you are intending to buy a house, then a recession will probably also involve a fall in house prices, so the loss in your savings will be somewhat balanced by the drop in the purchase price of your house. Of course, the worst case scenario is a severe downturn where you lose your job, are unemployed for a considerable period of time, burn through your emergency fund, and need to sell shares at a considerable loss to meet your expenses. You might have family or dependents that you can borrow from or would need to support, which would change your tolerance for risk. Having money locked away for 5 years in this scenario is even worse. So if you don't want to put all your non-emergency savings into the stock market, you still want to choose something that is accessible at a slightly lower interest rate. But ultimately it sounds like you can afford to lose some of your savings, and the probability is that you will be rewarded with much better returns than 2.3% over 5 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d056febf8af3e97adf1ac2c9590b44d", "text": "Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc11da81c53308ccd53376ff6fa4bd76", "text": "\"Edited answer, given that I didn't address the emergency fund aspect originally: None. You've said you don't feel comfortable locking it away where you wouldn't be able to get to it in an emergency. If you don't like locking it away, the answer to \"\"How much money should I lock up in my savings account?\"\" is none. On a more personal note, the interest rates on bonds are just awful. Over five years, you can do better.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "299853db8bcf407fd6521d9673dc0cde", "text": "One strategy to consider is a well-diversified index fund of equities. These have historically averaged 7-8% real growth. So withdrawing 3% or 4% yearly under that growth should allow you to withdraw 30+ years with little risk of drawing down all your capital. As a bonus you're savings target would come down from $10 million to $2.5 million to a little under $3.5 million.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3a7ea7a18655ce93d4b616d9b56a7dc", "text": "To store $1 milion in a bank with full FDIC insurance currently requires 4 separate bank accounts, each at 250k. It's not that difficult, particularly if you are married and your spouse can have 2 in his/her name. (This is dependent on the FDIC limit; they raised it to 250k after the 2008 crash).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "330bf78226ad31ceed4dba2a3dbe9b5e", "text": "\"It's also worth thinking about minor \"\"emergencies\"\" when the location of your cash may be more important than the amount. I keep a baggie of change and small bills in my glovebox for meters and tolls. I keep a ten dollar bill in my armband when I go out for a jog or bike. Those little stashes have saved me more than once. Zombie apocalypse money? I just have a couple hundred at home.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8842588d3e802c2eb6546e29acd274c5", "text": "but then they make suggestions such as paying extra each month on your mortgage. How else does one pay off his mortgage early other than by paying extra each month? The principal and interest are fixed, no matter how much money you throw at them. The interest rate is fixed. The total interest paid varies depending on how much extra you pay towards the principal. You'll pay the same amount every month regardless. That's factually incorrect. just put the extra money into savings At 1.2%, if you're smart enough to put it in an on-line savings account. until you have enough to pay off the mortgage Which costs you 3.5%. This way, the money is locked up in your home. Who says that all of your money must be locked up in your home? (I'm sure that there are financial advisors who recommend that you throw every single spare dime into extra mortgage payments, but they're rare.) Am I missing something? Yes: the mathematical sense to see that a 3.5% loan costs more than than 1.2% savings earns you", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec199cf207762c464059adad4d27fd60", "text": "Withdraw your savings as cash and stuff them into your mattress? Less flippantly, would the fees for a safe deposit box at a bank big enough to hold CHF 250'000 be less than the negative interest rate that you'd be penalized with if you kept your money in a normal account?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aca4fb3b0682042c936dbfe844e5052f", "text": "Well you have three main options in my opinion. For cash, or any assets you can convert to cash, you could purchase bonds with a maturity date close to what you are looking to lock your funds up for. While you could sell these on a secondary market, admittedly - however you have a justification you can provide to yourself as to why you cannot sell them. Fixed term deposits often have poor interest rates, but if you ask to withdraw your money early you often forfeit all of the interest you would have gained. While your money would not be locked up, it keeps it further out of your reach, just like bonds. Every step further away from your bank account the funds get, the less likely you are to surrender to giving away money that is rightfully yours. It comes with the added advantage of typically high-returns. Trust funds can be set up with anyone as the beneficiary, and provide legal barriers so long as the beneficiary isn't also the executor. While it can be expensive to do so, you could hire a lawyer who specialises in estate law to set up a trust fund you are the beneficiary of, which has stipulations as to how and when assets can be released. I didn't include this as one of the main three, because it doesn't allow you to specify exactly when funds are released to you, but in many countries (including the US) you have special tax advantaged retirement accounts, where funds are locked away until you retire. However, it is unfortunate you even need to think about this. Another thing to consider is that if people start pressuring you for money, you should cut them out of your life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad33a976edb517e8395a66c4212ed499", "text": "First of all, you should absolutely put money into savings until you have at least a 6 month cushion, and preferably longer. It doesn't matter if you get 0% interest in your savings and have a high interest rate mortgage, the cushion is still more important. Once you have a nice emergency fund, you can then consider the question of whether to pay more towards the mortgage if the numbers make sense. However, in my opinion, it's not just a straight comparison of interest rates. In other words, if your savings account gives you 1% and your mortgage is 5%, that's still not an automatic win for the mortgage. The reason is that by putting the money into your mortgage, you're locking it up and can't access it. To me, money in the hand is worth a lot more than money that's yours on paper but not easily accessible. I don't know the math well enough, but you don't really need the math. Just keep in mind that you have to weight the present value of putting that money into savings vs the future value of putting it into your mortgage and paying less interest at some point in the future. Do the math and see how much you will save by paying the mortgage down faster, but also keep in mind that future money is worth less than present money. A LOT less if you suddenly have an emergency or decide on a major purchase and need the money, but then have to jump through hoops to get to it. To me, you need to save a considerable amount by paying down the mortgage, and also understand that your money is getting locked away, for it to make sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44714eb2b7b27e40ad6de9cdbbec0533", "text": "\"I'll try to give you some clues on how to find an answer to your question, rather than answering directly the question asked. Why not answer it directly? Well, I can, but it won't help you (or anyone else) much in two months when the rates change again. Generally, you won't find such in brick-and-mortar banks. You can save some time and only look at online banks. Examples: ING Direct (CapitalOne), CapitalOne, Amex FSB, E*Trade, Ally, etc. There are plenty. Go to their web sites, look for promotions, and compare. Sometimes you can find coupons/promotions which will yield more than the actual savings rate. For example, ING frequently have a $50 promotion for opening a new account. You need to understand that rates change frequently, and the highest rate account today may become barely average in a week. There are plenty of sites that offer various levels of comparison information. One of the most comprehensive ones (IMHO) is Bankrate.com. Another place to look is MoneyRates.com. These sites provide various comparisons, and you can also find some promotions advertised there. There are more similar sites. Also, search the Internet and you can find various blog posts with additional promotions – frequently banks give \"\"referral bonuses\"\" to provide incentive for clients to promote the banks. Do some due diligence on the results that appear promising. Not much. You won't find any savings account that would keep the value (purchasing power) of your money over the long term. Keeping money in savings accounts is a sure way to lose value because the inflation rate is much higher than even high-yield savings accounts. But, savings accounts are safe (insured by FDIC/NCUA up to the limit), and very convenient to keep short term savings – such as an emergency fund – that you cannot afford to lose to investments. Sometimes you'll get slightly better rates by locking up your money in a Certificate of Deposit (CD), but not significantly higher when the CD is short-term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11e2ca802f70e201ecfa2a6f0e81f2f6", "text": "&gt; if you leave like 5k at all times in your account the fee is waived Easier said than done. In the US, more than 20% of adults have zero savings whatsoever, and 62% have less than $1,000 in savings. Pretty tough for most folks to have $5,000 just sitting around in order to prevent a $15 monthly fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c806ddf329c98ccf57a67bdaa8d97fa", "text": "It's hard to be disciplined when the money is right there to be spent. So what you should do is have two bank accounts. One for savings and one for spending. Figure out how much you need to spend per week and have your pay automatically deposit that much into the spending account and divert the rest into these accounts. Never touch your savings account unless it is an emergency or whatever. In fact, if you really want, you should put it as a termed deposit which you can't touch. As the only thing you see is your spending balance, you'll be forced to get used to living within your means. After a while, you're going to forget that you have that savings account at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4f61b877d8a4b2a47ea5f22cfe2168", "text": "\"Let's divide all bank accounts into savings and checking. The main difference is that checking is easy to get money from; savings is hard to get money from. Because of this, the federal Reserve requires that banks keep more money on hand to cover transactions in checking accounts. Here is a related question from a banking customer regarding a recent notice on their bank statement: Deposit Reclassification. It seems that the bank was moving the customer's money between hidden sub accounts to make it look like the checking account was really a savings account and thus \"\"reduce the amount of funds we are required to keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank.\"\" If they didn't have to transfer the money many times the bank could keep less cash on hand. But once they did 5 hidden transactions the rest of the money in the hidden savings account would be moved by the bank. The 6 transaction limit is done to not allow you to treat savings like checking. Here is a relevant quote from the Federal Reserve Savings Deposits Savings deposits generally have no specified maturity period. They may be interest-bearing, with interest computed or paid daily, weekly, quarterly, or on any other basis. The two most significant features of savings deposits are the ‘‘reservation of right’’ requirement and the restrictions on the number of ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals that may be made per month (or per statement cycle of at least four weeks) from the account. In order to classify an account as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the institution must in its account agreement with the customer reserve the right at any time to require seven days’ advance written notice of an intended withdrawal. In practice, this right is never exercised, but the institution must nevertheless reserve that right in the account agreement. In addition, for an account to be classified as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the depositor may make no more than six ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals per month from the account. ‘‘Convenient’’ transfers and withdrawals, for purposes of this limit, include preauthorized, automatic transfers (including but not limited to transfers from the savings deposit for overdraft protection or for direct bill payments) and transfers and withdrawals initiated by telephone, facsimile, or computer, and transfers made by check, debit card, or other similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. Other, less-convenient types of transfers, such as withdrawals or transfers made in person at the bank, by mail, or by using an ATM, do not count toward the six-per-month limit and do not affect the account’s status as a savings account. Also, a withdrawal request initiated by telephone does not count toward the transfer limit when the withdrawal is disbursed via check mailed to the depositor. Examiners should be particularly wary of a bank’s practices for handling telephone transfers. As noted, an unlimited number of telephone-initiated withdrawals are allowed so long as a check for the withdrawn funds is mailed to the depositor. Otherwise, the limit is six telephone transfers per month. The limit applies to telephonic transfers to move savings deposit funds to another type of deposit account and to make payments to third parties.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbcc31b3b194bb4a06218bfa4438d6f3", "text": "The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ea24f9daf0be1aa8cc556f394a7c9f", "text": "\"Don't mind the percentages. They are highly misleading. First, \"\"saving\"\" is making available for future use. It might be \"\"hoarding\"\", \"\"investing\"\" or a combination thereof. It might be for a specific use (a car, a college education, retirement, etc.), or for a non-specific use (for an emergency, for when you decide to spend some of those savings, or just for lack of a compelling use as of the moment). In first case, whatever you save should be available by the date you intend to use it. In second case, it might be prudent to have savings (and investments, see below) of various liquidity (cash you have at hand, bank account you can draw next day, mutual fund account you can draw in a month, maybe something you can only cash in a year etc.). You will see that the actual percentages you \"\"save\"\" fluctuate enormously throughout your life, varying with the progress of your career, changes of marital status and family cmposition, etc., etc. What you should really do is to come up with a rough plan of how you expect, from right now and to the end of your life at whatever age, have enough money for whatever level of comfort you plan for each period of your life, allowing for some specified level of perturbations. Then you just execute that plan or change it as you go.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a8a67ea7ce494e435405a0f4a50e3b6", "text": "Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e07c617f1278b936ca41ad293ffd4b98", "text": "Based on your question, I am going to assume your criterion are: Based on these, I believe you'd be interested in a different savings account, a CD, or money market account. Savings account can get you up to 1.3% and money market accounts can get up to 1.5%. CDs can get you a little more, but they're a little trickier. For example, a 5 year CD could get up to 2%. However, now you're money is locked away for the next few years, so this is not a good option if this money is your emergency fund or you want to use it soon. Also, if interest rates increase then your money market and savings accounts' interest rates will increase but your CD's interest rate misses out. Conversely, if interest rates drop, you're still locked into a higher rate.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
700385f0bbcebee9a683678174df01b9
Ways to save for child's college education where one need not commit to set contributions? [duplicate]
[ { "docid": "bd2b50466c2fb48a74a03351450603f0", "text": "529 plans. They accumulate earnings over time and by the time your child goes to college you will be able to withdraw funds for college TAX FREE. The best part about 529s is that there are several different options you can choose from, and you aren't limited to the plans sponsored by your state, you can use whichever plan works best for you. For example, I live in South Carolina and use Utah's Educational Savings Plan because it has no minimum amount to open one up and it has low fees. Hope this helped. Good luck with your search!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0eaf00f256cf298387ca5d1c2a154aa4", "text": "\"In my opinion, whichever plan or commodity system you use is just supplemental to a very simple thing: go to your bank's online account, set up a regular transfer (monthly in my case, maybe weekly for you depending on when you get your salary in your country/state) to a savings' account in your kid's name with a decent rate, and just watch it grow. Then adjust to salary fluctuations if needed. Also, prefer a tax-free savings account. Been working fine for me for my oldest who's now 4 yo. Started by saving only a little each month and increased as our financial pressure eased up a bit. For his sister, I already set up a similar thing and I will \"\"equalize\"\" both accounts with additional payments over time (Hmm, actually, maybe that's not fair and they just need to be \"\"equalized\"\" in that they both have the same amount for a given age... but that's another question). Another option, which I set up for my oldest but not for his sister was a child trust fund with an initial payment. We moved countries and I don't find a plan that I find similarly attractive here, and the other one is locked until 18 yo. But, as with all portfolios, it comes with a risk. Note that I don't live in the U.S. in the land of crazy college fees. Though I've studied myself in countries where fees were already a drag (and I'm being polite) for various fields (IT and music studies, anyone?), I have to say when I see fees for the big league universities and colleges in the U.S. I am kind of shocked. Doable, but good luck with that and with your loans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "576cccc84488349299efa67fd9a2de45", "text": "529 is good. Though, I would avoid other kinds of investments in kids names and or setting up accounts that are too complex or difficult to use as college costs will come in may aspects starting application fees and travel expenses when looking for college as well as housing and allowance spending.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3e50dd861f531211ef5db6eeca1998b", "text": "Since this post was migrated from Parenting, my reply was in the context where it appeared to be misrepresenting facts to make a point. I've edited it to be more concise to my main point. In my opinion, the best way to save for your childs future is to get rid of as much of your own debt as possible. Starting today. For the average American, a car is 6-10%. Most people have at least a couple credit cards, ranging from 10-25% (no crap). College loans can be all over the map (5-15%) as can be signature (8-15%) or secured bank loans (4-8%). Try to stop living within your credit and live within your means. Yeah it will suck to not go to movies or shop for cute things at Kohl's, but only today. First, incur no more debt. Then, the easiest way I found to pay things off is to use your tax returns and reduce your cable service (both potentially $Ks per year) to pay off a big debt like a car or student loan. You just gave yourself an immediate raise of whatever your payment is. If you think long term (we're talking about long-term savings for a childs college) there are things you can do to pay off debt and save money without having to take up a 2nd job... but you have to think in terms of years, not months. Is this kind of thing pie in the sky? Yes and no, but it takes a plan and diligence. For example, we have no TV service (internet only service redirected an additional $100/mo to the wifes lone credit card) and we used '12 taxes to pay off the last 4k on the car. We did the same thing on our van last year. It takes willpower to not cheat, but that's only really necessary for the first year-ish... well before that point you'll be used to the Atkins Diet on your wallet and will have no desire to cheat. It doesn't really hurt your quality of life (do you really NEED 5 HBO channels?) and it sets everyone up for success down the line. The moral of the story is that by paying down your debt today, you're taking steps to reduce long haul expenditures. A stable household economy is a tremendous foundation for raising children and can set you up to be more able to deal with the costs of higher ed.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "39efca8110c7d497f195cadf2e5cc2fe", "text": "I think you have a good start understanding the ESA. $2k limit per child per year. The other choice is a 529 account which has a much higher limit. You can deposit up to 5 years worth of gifting per child, or $65k per child from you and another $65k from your wife. Sounds great, right? The downside is the 529 typically has fewer investment options, and doesn't allow for individual stocks. The S&P fund in my 529 costs me nearly 1% per year, in the ESA, .1%. the ESA has to be used by age 30, the 529 can be held indefinitely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10ac79d2ac6be5c20574e7d20547be22", "text": "\"You have a few correlated questions here: Yes you can. There are only a few investment strategies that require a minimum contribution and those aren't ones that would get a blanket recommendation anyway. Investing in bonds or stocks is perfectly possible with limited funds. You're never too young to start. The power of interest means that the more time you give your money to grow, the larger your eventual gains will be (provided your investment is beating inflation). If your financial situation allows it, it makes sense to invest money you don't need immediately, which brings us to: This is the one you have to look at most. You're young but have a nice chunk of cash in a savings account. That money won't grow much and you could be losing purchasing power to inflation but on the other hand that money also isn't at risk. While there are dozens of investment options1 the two main ones to look at are: bonds: these are fixed income, which means they're fairly safe, but the downside is that you need to lock up your money for a long time to get a better interest rate than a savings account index funds that track the market: these are basically another form of stock where each share represents fractions of shares of other companies that are tracked on an index such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq. These are much riskier and more volatile, which is why you should look at this as a long-term investment as well because given enough time these are expected to trend upwards. Look into index funds further to understand why. But this isn't so much about what you should invest in, but more about the fact that an investment, almost by definition, means putting money away for a long period of time. So the real question remains: how much can you afford to put away? For that you need to look at your individual situation and your plans for the future. Do you need that money to pay for expenses in the coming years? Do you want to save it up for college? Do you want to invest and leave it untouched to inspire you to keep saving? Do you want to save for retirement? (I'm not sure if you can start saving via IRAs and the like at your age but it's worth looking into.) Or do you want to spend it on a dream holiday or a car? There are arguments to be made for every one of those. Most people will tell you to keep such a \"\"low\"\" sum in a savings account as an emergency fund but that also depends on whether you have a safety net (i.e. parents) and how reliable they are. Most people will also tell you that your long-term money should be in the stock market in the form of a balanced portfolio of index funds. But I won't tell you what to do since you need to look at your own options and decide for yourself what makes sense for you. You're off to a great start if you're thinking about this at your age and I'd encourage you to take that interest further and look into educating yourself on the investments options and funds that are available to you and decide on a financial plan. Involving your parents in that is sensible, not in the least because your post-high school plans will be the most important variable in said plan. To recap my first point and answer your main question, if you've decided that you want to invest and you've established a specific budget, the size of that investment budget should not factor into what you invest it in. 1 - For the record: penny stocks are not an investment. They're an expensive form of gambling.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d457ed23d4d188203fae9f08792b9a22", "text": "\"This is an old question, but a new product has popped up that provides an alternative answer. There is a website called stockpile.com that allows you to purchase \"\"stock gift certificates\"\" for others. These come in both electronic and traditional physical form. This meets my question's original criteria of a gift giver paying for stock without having any of the recipient's personal information and thus maintaining the gift's surprise. I should note a few things about this service: Despite these limitations I wanted to post it here so others were aware of it as an option. If no other alternative will work and this is what it takes to get a parent interested in teaching their child to invest, then it's well worth the costs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcf00c058fb795ee2b66e94a51bb9c79", "text": "\"According to the FAFSA info here, they will count your nonretirement assets when figuring the EFC. The old Motley Fool forum question I mentioned in my comment suggests asking the school for a \"\"special circumstances adjustment to your FAFSA\"\". I don't know much about it, but googling finds many pages about it at different colleges. This would seem to be something you need to do individually with whatever school(s) your son winds up considering. Also, it is up to the school whether to have mercy on you and accept your request. Other than that, you should establish whatever retirement accounts you can and immediately begin contributing as much as possible. Given that the decision is likely to be complicated by your foreign income, you should seek professional advice from an accountant versed in such matters.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9cb6f639cc02d9fa95f1f7e8dd31186", "text": "Probably the biggest tax-deferment available to US workers is through employee-sponsored investment plans like the 401k. If you meet the income limits, you could also use a Traditional IRA if you do not have a 401k at work. But keep in mind that you are really just deferring taxes here. The US Government will eventually get their due. :) One way which you may find interesting is by using 529 plans, or other college investment plans, to save for your child's (or your) college expenses. Generally, contributions up to a certain amount are deductible on your state taxes, and are exempt from Federal and State taxes when used for qualifying education expenses. The state deduction can lower your taxes and help you save for college for your children, if that is a desire of yours.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dcea2a043b2b89f705cdb34fec89fe2", "text": "\"As soon as you specify FDIC you immediately eliminate what most people would call investing. The word you use in the title \"\"Parking\"\" is really appropriate. You want to preserve the value. Therefore bank or credit union deposits into either a high yield account or a Certificate of Deposit are the way to go. Because you are not planning on a lot of transactions you should also look at some of the online only banks, of course only those with FDIC coverage. The money may need to be available over the next 2-5 years to cover college tuition If needing it for college tuition is a high probability you could consider putting some of the money in your state's 529 plan. Many states give you a tax deduction for contributions. You need to check how much is the maximum you can contribute in a year. There may be a maximum for your state. Also gift tax provisions have to be considered. You will also want to understand what is the amount you will need to cover tuition and other eligible expenses. There is a big difference between living at home and going to a state school, and going out of state. The good news is that if you have gains and you use the money for permissible expenses, the gains are tax free. Most states have a plan that becomes more conservative as the child gets closer to college, therefore the chance of losses will be low. The plan is trying to avoid having a large drop in value just a the kid hits their late teens, exactly what you are looking for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "d5fccfee4794940e96ad9d71100be6ab", "text": "\"Several student loans are backed by government guarantee and this will allow you to get attractive rates. This may require them to consolidate the three classes of loans separately. Many commercial banks offer consolidation services, one example is Wachovia discussed at https://www.wellsfargo.com/student/private-loan-consolidation/ Other methods of \"\"consolidation\"\" are of course anything that pays off the original loan. If available, using a parent's home equity line of credit to pay of the loans and then paying back the parents can save money. An additional benefit of HELOC-style loans is that they are very flexible in their payment terms. For example you may pay $25 per year to keep the account open and then only be required to make interest payments. Links: https://origin.bankrate.com/finance/college-finance/faqs-on-student-loan-consolidation-1.aspx\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8a1f6e41f6870de191a8e56f1d19176", "text": "You are faced with a dilemma. If you use a 529 plan to fund your education, the short timeline of a few years will limit your returns that are tax free. Most people who use a 529 plan either purchase years of tuition via lump sum, when the child is young; or they put aside money on a regular basis that will grow tax deferred/tax free. Some states do give a tax break when the contribution is made by a state taxpayer into a plan run by the state. The long term plans generally use a risk profile that starts off heavily weighted in stock when the child is young, and becomes more fixed income as the child reaches their high school years. The idea is to protect the fund from big losses when there is no time to recover. If you choose the plan with the least risk the issue is that the amount of gains that are being protected from federal tax is small. If you pick a more aggressive plan the risk is that the losses could be larger than the state tax savings. Look at some of the other tax breaks for tuition to see if you qualify Credits An education credit helps with the cost of higher education by reducing the amount of tax owed on your tax return. If the credit reduces your tax to less than zero, you may get a refund. There are two education credits available: the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit. Who Can Claim an Education Credit? There are additional rules for each credit, but you must meet all three of the following for either credit: If you’re eligible to claim the lifetime learning credit and are also eligible to claim the American opportunity credit for the same student in the same year, you can choose to claim either credit, but not both. You can't claim the AOTC if you were a nonresident alien for any part of the tax year unless you elect to be treated as a resident alien for federal tax purposes. For more information about AOTC and foreign students, visit American Opportunity Tax Credit - Information for Foreign Students. Deductions Tuition and Fees Deduction You may be able to deduct qualified education expenses paid during the year for yourself, your spouse or your dependent. You cannot claim this deduction if your filing status is married filing separately or if another person can claim an exemption for you as a dependent on his or her tax return. The qualified expenses must be for higher education. The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. This deduction, reported on Form 8917, Tuition and Fees Deduction, is taken as an adjustment to income. This means you can claim this deduction even if you do not itemize deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040). This deduction may be beneficial to you if, for example, you cannot take the lifetime learning credit because your income is too high. You may be able to take one of the education credits for your education expenses instead of a tuition and fees deduction. You can choose the one that will give you the lower tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "902175a618268269d197835f4027f20c", "text": "\"Under current US tax code, you can receive $14K from an unlimited number of people with no tax consequence to them. Yes, the burden is on the giver. There's an exception to most rules. If I gift you a large sum and don't fill out the required paperwork, paying the tax due, the IRS can go after the recipient for their cut. \"\"Follow the money\"\" is still going to be applied. Even if over $14K, a tax isn't always due. Form 709 is required, and will allow a credit against one's lifetime gifting, currently $5.34M. In effect, the current limits mean that 99%+ of us will never worry about this limit, just file the paperwork. Last, the 529 College Savings accounts permit a 5 year look ahead, i.e. a parent can deposit $70K to jump start her child's account. Then no gift for next 4 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c79894c7fa372a0fc8b279eaf727db50", "text": "\"In my opinion, you can't save too much for retirement. An extra $3120/yr invested at 8% for 30 years would give you $353K more at retirement. If your \"\"good amount in my 401k\"\" is a hint that you don't want us to go in that direction, then how about saving for the child's college education? 15 years' savings, again at 8% will return $85K, which feels like a low number even in today's dollars, 15 years of college inflation and it won't be much at all. Not sure why there's guilt around spending it. If one has no debt, good retirement savings level, and no pressing need to save for something else, enjoying one's money is an earned reward. Even so, if you want a riskless 'investment' just prepay the mortgage. You'll see an effective return of the mortgage rate, 4%(?) or so, vs the .001% banks are paying. Of course, this creates a monthly windfall once the mortgage is paid off, but it buys you time to make this ultimate decision. In the end, I'd respond that similar to Who can truly afford luxury cars?, one should produce a budget. I don't mean a set of constraints to limit spending in certain categories, but rather, a look back at where the money went last year and even the year before that. What will emerge are the things that are normal, the utility bills, tax bill, mortgage, etc, as well as the discretionary spending. If all your current saving is on track, the investment may be in experiences, not financial products.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98308db7064246b27f37cdf304800bf8", "text": "There are two types of 529 programs. One where you put money aside each month. The one offered by your state may give you a tax break on you deposits. You can pick the one from any state, if you like their options better. During the next 18 years the focus the investment changes from risky to less risky to no risk. This happens automatically. The money can be used for tuition, room, board, books, fees. The 2nd type of 529 is also offered by a state but it is geared for a big lump sum payment when the child is young. This will cover full tuition and fees (not room and board, or books) at a state school. The deal is not as great if they child wants to go out of state, or you move, or they want to go to a private school. You don't lose everything, but you will have to make up the shortfall at the last minute. There are provisions for scholarship money. If you kid goes to West Point you haven't wasted the money in the 529. The money in either plan is ignored while calculating financial aid. Other options such as the Coverdell Education Savings account also exist. But they don't have the options and state tax breaks. Accounts in the child's name can impact the amount of financial aid offered, plus they could decide to spend the money on a car. The automatic investment shift for most of the state 529 plans does cover your question of how much risk to take. There are also ways to transfer the money to other siblings if one decides not to go to college. Keep in mind that the funds don't have to be spent as soon as they turn 18, they can wait a few years before enrolling in college.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e808270f61e48530726c53dae641c17", "text": "One big advantage that the 529 plan has is that most operate like a target date fund. As the child approaches college age the investment becomes more conservative. While you can do this by changing the mix of investments, you can't do it without capital gains taxes. Many of the issues you are concerned about are addressed: they are usable by other family members, they don't hurt financial aid offers, they address scholarships, they can be used for books or room and board. Many states also give you a tax break in the year of the contribution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e23806abc4aac758bb9c06fc926f314", "text": "begin having them take community college courses while they are still in high school - this should be a better use of time than AP courses. if they continue and get an associates degree the credits should be transferrable anywhere take the associates degree to a state school and have them finish just their two years (4 semesters) at the state school. that should be an non-stressful and affordable approach that will give them a time/age-based advantage over their peers. so instead of playing with financial aid and retirement plan rules, this sort of goal can help you save, without creating inconsequential and unnecessary expectations for yourself or your family", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f91f4a2c1fefc9609804c9797e792abd", "text": "The British didn't choose to stay away, they were forced out (as was Sweden) by their fucked up policies and being unable to defend their peg against the (trading only at the time) euro currency. They lost a fuckload in the process and when it became apparent that those that understand market arbitrage wouldn't let up (what killed Mexico/Argentia Peso as well), they backed out.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
8b46131ef342fd328a867154596ef7cf
TOCOM oil in USD
[ { "docid": "b696977ed0be24dcb70a0a0d1312c22f", "text": "TOCOM Crude is a cash-settled blend of Oman and Dubai crude oil, both quoted in USD. The daily settlement price is mark to market, but the final settlement price is based on reported prices from Dubai and Oman (or calculated in some cases with a known procedure), averaged and then converted to Yen using monthly average exchange rates as published by a reference bank (see Detailed Rules) You're trying to go all the way back and unfuddle quotes into a blend of USD-quoted oils. The correct procedure here would be to go with the Oman and Dubai prices in the first place (unless you're trying to arbitrage the TOCOM market). As to why they do it this way? It's a service. TOCOM takes on all the challenges to provide customers with a steady and consistent way of trading cash-oil. For physical oil, all you'd have to do is buy the blend on Dubai's and Oman's spot market. You trust TOCOM's price finding process, i.e. there will be no discrepancies between your TOCOM cash-oil and the Middle East physical oil. Edit: As to why Japan isn't buying WTI directly: There's a considerable cost of carry. WTI delivery location is Cushing, OK; there are pipelines but it's still a logistics act to get the oil to a port on the West Coast and then have it shipped to Japan. Dubai's delivery is at Jebel Ali (Persian Gulf), Omani crude can be shipped straight from Mina Al Fahal. Not only is it a shorter trip but also there are more shipping companies specialised in oil deliveries to the Asian hotspots. Why they pay in USD? Persian oil is highly sought after in nearly all of Asia's economies but there's little other exported goods from there. So naturally the market for currency crosses (AEDJPY, OMRJPY, AEDINR, OMRINR, etc.) is not that liquid. At least not as liquid as to make buying Persian oil a smooth deal. Anyway, both Dubai and Oman chose to follow Western practice to quote their contracts in USD and (maybe because of liquidity concerns) also to accept USD for payment only.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "10f1f5163224b18743d6c5c8c3dbfd22", "text": "December, 7, 2011 ( 01:50 pm) :- Bullion are sparked at the late or and session of MCX &amp; Comex. USA investors are not worried about the coming events because European leaders signals that IMF providing help for European countries who are facing financial crisis. Crude oil momentum also range bound whole day, a rising tension on the Iran exports resistance will trigger oil prices will at new high. Silver have strong resistance at $ 33.20 above this level it's trend bullish under this its trend totally down. Gold have strong resistance at $ 1742 above this trend totally bullish side &amp; unless its in down trend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "949551126783dc387e3ca4d8f8389f3b", "text": "What you want is the distribution yield, which is 2.65. You can see the yield on FT as well, which is listed as 2.64. The difference between the 2 values is likely to be due to different dates of updates. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CORP:LSE:USD", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19d03eebdf58ccc4e40479277b793021", "text": "&gt; Arguably, the dollar today is essentially backed by oil i.e. as economists say the 'petrodollar'. This isn't really true. The exchange rate between USD and a barrel of oil floats with the market whereas it was fixed with gold. Also by the nature of the way oil is consumed it doesn't make sense to think of it this way - gold retains state when used whereas oil is burnt up never to be seen again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9c6e53f61bc171128389984cb3c149", "text": "I think this could be a even bigger problem for us since dollar is not just the international curreny for oil but for like mostly everything. This trend could be pushed by china and russia for other stuff to which is terrible for US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a52d39b622243a43eaec2c65193312cc", "text": "This is no big deal, IMO. The only real advantage is that I can think of is that if oil is priced in your currency then you're not subject to foreign currency fluctuations dictating your energy costs. In the short term USD has been falling. If this trend continues and oil switches to yuan, then our energy will become more expensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80e061f28281f79fcdea24712b43a2ab", "text": "\"US is the major oil consumer, and produces only about half as much - so the lower the prices, the better for it. As for the oil industry in the US - it will never fail since government just prints more money to prop it up regardless of its real economic effectiveness: it needs it to defang OPEC from being able to pull off another 1974 Oil Embargo. Hell, Gore even invented the \"\"global warming\"\" just for that purpose!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2d42137aed0a277db3fba7aab67fa1b", "text": "EFA must be bought and sold in US dollars. XIN allows people to buy and sell EFA in Canadian dollars without exposing their investment to unpredictable swings in the USD/CAD ratio. This is what's known as a currency-hedged instrument. Now, why the chart sums up to over 100% is anyone's guess. Presumably it's the result of a couple hundred rounding errors from all the components. If you view their most recent report, it also sums up to over 100%, but at least the EFA component is (sensibly) under 100%. P.S. I'm not seeing where it says there's only one holding. There's the primary holding, plus over 100 other cash holdings to effect the currency-hedging.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76f805fba133d2272947714245b4c446", "text": "As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bac039338b7d35deb88310614fc1cdde", "text": "Swaps form backstop to a shit load of int'l trade. Liquidity of currency is a huge factor in being a govt reserve currency, which USD currently has the VAST majority of holdings. This agreement is a shove against USE dominance in trade settlements, which is negative. Also challenges us general capital markets dominance a bit", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ba990649e6c9220ec937aa97e31bcd2", "text": "\"No. Suppose you have 100 Canadian dollars and the exchange rate is 2 CAD = 1 USD. You use your 100 CAD to purchase 50 USD (in your bank account that is in USD). Some time later the Canadian dollar grows stronger, so that now 1 CAD = 1 USD. If you now withdraw your 50 USD and get Canadian dollars, you will receive 50 CAD. You have lost half your money. If you want to make money on currency exchange rates (which is a risky plan), you should buy the currency that is cheap (i.e., \"\"weak\"\"). If, say, oil is very cheap, you don't make money by selling oil; you buy it and sell it later when the price goes up. Likewise, if the Canadian dollar isn't worth much and the US dollar is, you should buy Canadian dollars, not US dollars, hoping to sell them later when the exchange rate is more favorable. See also this similar question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9b01c730b07238a85a5411cde684828", "text": "\"That oil is traded in USD makes for extra demand and thus a stronger dollar with more purchasing power. It's not really economics that are the issue though - many might argue a weakened dollar might help the US economy (cheaper exports). The real issue is power. These gold backed securities make it so that certain countries can get around US sanctions. Not to mention that controlling the currency that oil is traded in means the US can devalue their currency to gain an advantage in the event of a shortage. Also, because petroleum is traded in dollars, this means treasury bonds are a natural place to store wealth for oil producers. High demand for these bonds makes it cheap for the US government to borrow and easier to make interest payments thus making T-Bonds a \"\"safe\"\" asset.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "317721c16afa000cc9c084a0484496f7", "text": "You can buy the exchange traded fund ETFS WTI Crude Oil (CRUD), amongst other ETFS products. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CRUD:LSE:USD Note these funds do not 'jump' when the crude oil futures contracts are in contango (e.g. June contract is priced higher than May) and the futures roll-over, as they do monthly. When this happens the EFTS continues with no movement. Currently May is $52.85 and June is $54.15 (so in contango). LSE:CRUD is $13.40 and if the crude oil futures rolled-over it would carry straight on at that value. For this reason one should be cautious buying and holding LSE:CRUD longterm.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f18cbce1637a4bb01a6725d1a3c5b52", "text": "China does not use dollar for their largest oil buy, Russia, Iran. They also have yuan swap agreement with their large trading partners like Korea, japan, EU. Basically, the only trade that will be critically affected will be north america and latin america. China's critical trade in Eurasia are all in non dollar already. China has built, its own international payment system, central bank swap agreements, SWIFT alternative, largest commodity market, and various free trade agreements and zones. 20% of US import is chinese goods, mainly consumer product and electrical machines. So that will be interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f8847ee03e084d76b067e940cd6d7e1", "text": "\"It's standard to price oil in US$. That means that if the US$ gets stronger, the prices of oil drops even if its \"\"intrinsic value\"\" remains constant. Same thing happens for other commodities, such as gold. Think of the oil price in barrels/$. If the denominator (value of the $) goes up, then the ratio tends to go down.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11ae7e9ec09f2cb9a371d6f336c3dd6a", "text": "Then, is it possible to deposit rubles at the same ATM to get USD in my account at the same rate? No this is not possible. Generally deposits into accounts outside country and not offered.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
b06ea41d5083ceaca9f7f5e31baaa5a0
Why are U.S. Treasury interest rates are so low vs. other nearly risk-free rates?
[ { "docid": "4bc4149facdd396eff188dbc9a9af5be", "text": "As I'm sure you are reading in Hull's classic, the basic valuation of bonds depends on the chance of entity defaulting on those bonds. Let's start with just looking at the US. The United States has a big advantage over corporations in issuing debt as it also prints the same currency that the debt is denominated in. This makes it much easier not to default on your debt as you can always print more money to pay it. Printing too much currency would cause inflation lowering the value of debt, but this would also lower the value of US corporate debt as well. So you can think of even the highest rated corporate bonds as having the same rate as government debt plus a little extra due to the additional default risk of the corporation. The situation with other AA rated governments is more complicated. Most of those governments have debt denominated in their local currency as well so it may seem like they should all have similar rates. However, some governments have higher and some actually have lower rates than the United States. Now, as above, some of the difference is due to the possible need of printing too much currency to cover the debt in crisis and now that we have more than one country to invest in the extra risk of international money flowing out of the country's bonds. However, the bigger difference between AA governments rates depends more on money flow, central banks and regulation. Bonds are still mostly freely traded instruments that respond to supply and demand, but this supply and demand is heavily influenced by governments. Central banks buy up large portions of the debt raising demand and lowering rates. Regulators force banks to hold a certain amount of treasuries perhaps inflating demand. Finally, to answer your question the United States has some interesting advantages partially just due to its long history of stability, controlled inflation and large economy making treasuries valuable as one of the lowest risk investments. So its rates are generally on the low end, but government manipulation can still mean that it is not necessarily the lowest.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "c3ad742e1267bbc34a7d060d900beae9", "text": "\"True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes. Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as \"\"100% safe\"\" as it gets. However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%. I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9ff22fad222bb44d548c34d3f973584", "text": "Yes, the interest rate on a Treasury does change as market rates change, through changes in the price. But once you purchase the instrument, the rate you get is locked in. The cashflows on a treasury are fixed. So if the market rate increase, the present value of those future cashflows decreases, so the price of the treasury decreases. If you buy the bond after this happens, you would pay a lower price for the same fixed cashflows, hence you will receive a higher rate. Note that once you purchase the treasury instrument, your returns are locked in and guaranteed, as others have mentioned. Also note that you should distinguish between Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds, which you seem to use interchangeably. Straight from the horse's mouth, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/products.htm: Treasury Bills are short term securities with maturity up to a year, Treasury Notes are medium term securities with maturity between 1 and 10 years, and Treasury Bonds are anything over 10 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8581237521e013efb99dba1ca0c48598", "text": "Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore. I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months. Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33580f0327e95b794853dd6c811a609b", "text": "Generally, if you watch for the detail in the fine print, and stay away from non-FDIC insured investments, there is little difference, so yes, pick the highest you can get. The offered interest rate is influenced by what the banks are trying to accomplish, and how their current and desired customer base thinks. Some banks have customer bases with very conservative behavior, which will stick with them because they trust them no matter what, so a low interest rate is good enough. The disadvantage for the bank is that such customers prefer brick-and-mortar contact, which is expensive for the bank. Or maybe the bank has already more cash than they need, and has no good way to invest it. Other banks might need more cash flow to be able to get stronger in the mortgage market, and their way of getting that is to offer higher interest rates, so new customers come and invest new money (which the bank in turn can then mortgage out). They also may offer higher rates for online handling only. Overall, there are many different ways to make money as a bank, and they diversify into different niches with other focuses, and that comes with offering quite different interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfdc52a2cfc44ce0064278373b4b6621", "text": "\"If you invest in a foreign bank you are subject to their financial rules and regulations. If you put your money with their CD it will be converted to UAH (grivna) and you will be paid back in UAH, which introduces the exchange rate risk. FDIC is not the only reason why a CD in a US bank pays a lower interest, but it could be seen as a contributing factor. It all comes down to risk and what the bank is willing to pay for your money, when a bank issues a CD they are entering the debt market and competing against other banks, governments, or anyone looking for money. If the yield from lending to one bank is the same as the yield of another, the logical choice would be whichever loan is less risky. So in order for the riskier bank to receive loans they must entice investors by offering a greater rate of return. In addition, if a bank isn't looking for loans they might be less inclined to pay for them. - See \"\"What is the “Bernanke Twist” and “Operation Twist”? What exactly does it do?\"\" If your looking to invest in the CD's of foreign banks I would suggest doing research on their regulations. Especially if and how your money is protected in the event the bank goes bust.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6d9456ced95d82d4b55a30dcd8ae546", "text": "Russia has become more risky as an investment, thus investors, basically the market, wants to be paid more for investing in or owning those bonds. As yields go up, prices go down. So right now you can buy a low priced Russian bond with a high yield because the market views the risk involved as higher than risks involved in other similar securities.", "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": "e5416a1c34543f185d3e43efc655ef62", "text": "As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5f637de23473422719e110e6896e210", "text": "You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f73dc803fba81d5dfb602b8038cccdb", "text": "It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "731bd197a7cbfbb1f1d38f9348447847", "text": "\"Its because of the economic uncertainty in the world. They are the \"\"risk-free\"\" investment as it is an almost guaranteed return if you exclude inflation and US gov't defaulting. A lot of people are afraid to invest elsewhere given the current economic climate. The yield on bonds is also low due to government intervention. Quantitative easing 1 and 2 and operation twist has forced yield this low, as that is what the government wants.\"", "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": "65ee8fe1e4d415e65ad72de915f56166", "text": "I would also like to have this discussed, alongside the issue that the US has gone into some type of [recession](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/US_Treasuries_to_Federal_Funds_Rate.png) roughly every ten year. So with the prospect of a possible recession with a close to 0% cash rate looming, what tools will the FED employ to keep Banks borrowing while maintaining inflation rates?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ab2573cad4bde03574e290f5e8ed6ac", "text": "\"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "020d22d766952e6008bf848df7c060d2", "text": "\"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy. Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea. Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds. At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate. In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated. There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing. That's at a whole market level. Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that \"\"bond rates\"\" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks. So I've talked about the bond rate. The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate. The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment. And vice versa.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
17aa99c2e50cf7a73463528f3d26a9b5
How do I bring money overseas?
[ { "docid": "5985a7c041ca425986510e782c5f88bc", "text": "\"This page from TripAdvisor may be of interest. Look at what fees are charged on your ATM cards and credit cards, and consider overpaying your credit card so you have a credit balance that you can draw on for cash \"\"advances\"\" from ATMs that will dispense in local currency. Depending on what fees your bank charges, you may get a better rate than the forex cash traders at the airport. Edit: Cards may not always have the best rate. I recently heard from a traveler who was able to use a locally but not globally dominant currency to buy cash of a major currency at a shopping mall (with competitive forex traders) at rates even better than the mid-market rates posted at xe.com and similar places; I don't think you'll have that experience going from Australia to Malaysia (but another traveler reading this might have a different pair). In my experience the card rates are slightly worse than those and the airport forex traders significantly worse.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b454bdd66734e04e3cd3b92bb4779f8f", "text": "I'm an Australian who just got back from a trip to Malaysia for two weeks over the New Year, so this feels a bit like dejavu! I set up a 28 Degrees credit card (my first ever!) because of their low exchange rate and lack of fees on credit card transactions. People say it's the best card for travel and I was ready for it. However, since Malaysia is largely a cash economy (especially in the non-city areas), I found myself mostly just withdrawing money from my credit card and thus getting hit with a cash advance fee ($4) and instant application of the high interest rate (22%) on the money. Since I was there already and had no other alternatives, I made five withdrawals over the two weeks and ended up paying about $21 in fees. Not great! But last time I travelled I had a Commonwealth Bank Travel Money Card (not a great idea), and if I'd used that instead on this trip and given up fees for a higher exchange rate, I would have been charged an extra $60! Presumably my Commonwealth debit card would have been the same. This isn't even including mandatory ATM fees. If I've learned anything from this experience and these envelope calculations I'm doing now, it's these:", "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": "4e6aa2924261e912bdbcdaa2d5fed67f", "text": "\"First thing is that your English is pretty damn good. You should be proud. There are certainly adult native speakers, here in the US, that cannot write as well. I like your ambition, that you are looking to save money and improve yourself. I like that you want to move your funds into a more stable currency. What is really tough with your plan and situation is your salary. Here in the US banks will typically have minimum deposits that are high for you. I imagine the same is true in the EU. You may have to save up before you can deposit into an EU bank. To answer your question: Yes it is very wise to save money in different containers. My wife and I have one household savings account. Yet that is broken down by different categories (using a spreadsheet). A certain amount might be dedicated to vacation, emergency fund, or the purchase of a luxury item. We also have business and accounts and personal accounts. It goes even further. For spending we use the \"\"envelope system\"\". After our pay check is deposited, one of us goes to the bank and withdraws cash. Some goes into the grocery envelope, some in the entertainment envelope, and so on. So yes I think you have a good plan and I would really like to see a plan on how you can increase your income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b107f95e9f5c4b948052d8f9812b1d38", "text": "The Transfer of funds outside of Bangladesh is restricted. Any transfers required the permission of Bangladesh Bank [Central Bank]. So the only legal option is to apply for the permission and see if its granted. Western Union is a Money Transfer and typically is good for getting funds into Bangladesh, most expats in Bangladesh would use the service. It can unfortunately not be used other way round.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f02485a9df69d2c5f96f91ea78db1b1", "text": "\"I have heard that I can give 10k as a gift in cash for my aunt to take on the plane. Please don't, for her own safety. Don't know when was the last you've been to Russia, but that's not a place to walk around with $10K in cash in your pocket. For the rest, the 20k, I am not sure what is the best course of action. Would something like Western Union, Paypal or Bank Wire Transfer be the best course of action? Wire transfer would be the safest option. Would there be tax implications for me as well? Depends on where you are tax resident and where you are a citizen. Some countries have \"\"gift tax\"\", but most don't. If you're a US tax resident, then you're subject to US gift tax rules. Your gifts are taxable if they exceed $14K per year per person. So your $30K to your mom is taxable. But your $10K to your mom, $10K to your dad and $10K to your aunt is not. You cannot however control what they do with it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdeb757b60aa6f7d68a075db4b6f8edf", "text": "Do an semi-online transfer. I had a similar situation where i had to transfer 5K USD to a commercial entity. You can request the publisher to give you their bank account details. You will need the SWIFT code of the bank( SWIFT code is a international code that each bank gets to transfer money) You will need bank account number, account name, bank address, address of the publisher. Then just walk into your bank with the above details. Note that you will have to visit a branch in your city that allows forex transfers. They will give you a set of forms to fill up. The above details will be needed to fill up these forms In addition to the above, you will be asked to fill up a purpose code maintained by RBI. This code is used by RBI to understand the reason why you are transferring the money. The bank will provide you with a sheet which will have these codes and explanation of these codes. Read through the codes and in case of any questions ask the bank officials to help Tip: If you have accounts with any private sector banks, please approach them. Public sector banks will give you tough time Hope this helps! Regards, Ravi", "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": "ea4890b3e7eff99fd2658e853e07baca", "text": "\"The new information helps a little, but you're still stuck as far as doing exactly what you asked. The question that you really should be asking is \"\"How do I deposit money into my BofA checking account from Italy?\"\" If you can figure that out, then the whole part about your father's AmEx card really becomes irrelevant. He might get that money from a cash advance on his AmEx card or he might get it from somewhere else. I think there's some small chance that if you call BofA and ask the right question, they may give you an answer that will let you make this deposit. I tend to doubt it, but this would at least give you a chance. Other than that, you should probably look into some options based in Italy. For example, get the cash from your father and open a bank account in Italy. Maybe you can buy a pre-paid Visa card with the cash to use while you're there. Maybe use traveler's checks for the rest of your trip. Etc. What is available and what makes sense will still depend on a lot of details that we don't have (like how long you're staying and what type of entry visa you got when you entered Italy).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c11c09b85c443880b8d617752cb05e2a", "text": "\"For some reason can't transfer it directly to his account overseas (something to do with security codes, authorized payees and expired cards). Don't become someone's financial intermediary. Find out exactly why he can't transfer the money himself, and then if you want to help him, solve that problem for him. Helping him fix his issue with his expired card, or whatever the real problem is, would be a good thing to do. Allowing him to involve you in the transaction, would be a bad thing to do. Possible problems which might be caused by becoming directly involved in the transaction: -The relative is being scammed themselves, and doesn't realize it / doesn't realize the risks, and either wants you to take the risk, or simply thinks there is no risk but needs administrative help. -The person contacting you is not the relative - perhaps they are faking that person's identity, and are using your trust to defraud you. -The person is committing some form of fraud, money laundering, or worse, and is directly trying to defraud you in order to keep their hands clean. -The transaction may be perfectly legal, but is considered taxable in one or more countries. By getting involved, you might face tax filing obligations, or even tax payment obligations. -The transaction may be perfectly legal and legitimate, but might accidentally get picked up as potential fraud by a financial monitoring system, causing the funds to be held, and your account to be flagged for further investigation, creating headaches for you until it becomes resolved. There are possibly other ways that this can go awry, but these are the biggest possibilities I can think of. The only possible 'good' outcome here is that everything goes smoothly, and it works exactly as well as if your relative's \"\"administrative problems\"\" were solved first, and the money went through his own account. Handwaving about why your account is needed and his is faulty is a big red flag. If it is truly just an administrative issue on his end, help him fix that issue instead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c2dfe34ea55af11139b3dade5f2cb38", "text": "I assume the same criteria apply for this as your previous question. You want to physically transfer in excess of 50,000 USD multiple times a week and you want the transportation mechanism to be instant or very quick. I don't believe there is any option that won't raise serious red flags with the government entities you cross the boundaries of. Even a cheque, which a person in the comments of OP's question suggests, wouldn't be sufficient due to government regulation requiring banks to put holds on such large amounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0568dee1a562b5ddf66be45c0d8fcde", "text": "\"One option would be to physically ship the money from Israel to the US. I quickly ran the numbers for shipping different amounts of $100 bills (One pound equals 454 bills) using a popular shipping company. Here are the results: The \"\"sweet\"\" spot is $100,000. That would only cost you $76 to ship which is just 0.08% of the amount being transferred. Of course, the shipping company's website says international shipments of money are prohibited. Their website, however, let me categorize the shipment as \"\"money\"\". Strange.\"", "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": "481656d627aac6f23fffa2d95abc9adc", "text": "Just tell your bank where you're going so they don't lock your account, and then take your Visa, and take enough cash to survive if something happens to your Visa account (sometimes banks lock them anyways out of idiocy). I usually take about 600 bucks cash for a week excursion (enough for food and a shack, or a mansion if you're in Asia). I figure, I'm carrying my passport which is worth thousands to criminals abroad around my neck. Why worry about carrying a little cash. As far as the Visa goes, just make sure your bank doesn't charge enormous fees for currency conversion. As far as carrying the local currency goes. I don't recommend it. Just figure out the conversion rate, and you'll save about 5% of your money from fees converting to and from. If you're going to Russia, do convert your currency first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33da7c09e1a08fdf982f837b5ce5fe70", "text": "Most Banks allow to make an international transfer. As the amounts is very small, there is no paperwork required. Have your dad walk into any Bank and request for a transfer. He should be knowing your Bank's SWIFT BIC, Name and Address and account number. Edit: Under the liberalised remittance scheme, any individual can transfer upto 1 million USD or eq. A CA certificate is required. Please get in touch with your bank in India for exact steps", "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": "e445fbec7bd8b703081fde4dce9a5c7b", "text": "Nationwide Flex Account lets you receive money internationally for free, but you have to pay to send it. It meets all your other criteria.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
042c06110d600f08d16908beeab1deaa
Value of tokens bought at an older price
[ { "docid": "2c563cd84f91feb303bc9883e56d5032", "text": "\"You will make a profit in nominal dollars (or nominal units of whatever currency you used to buy the token). Whether you'll make a profit in real dollars depends on inflation, and in practice whether it would be possible to sell your existing tokens to someone else for the new price. Suppose when the price was 50 U (50 \"\"units\"\", since you didn't specify a currency), you bought one token. Today you can either spend 52 U for a token, and get a liter of milk, or you can spend your existing token (for which you paid 50 U) and get a liter of milk. It looks like you are making a profit of 2 U by spending your token. However, whether that profit is real or illusory depends on what else you could do with the token. For instance, suppose that, since the price of a token is now 52 U, you will have no trouble finding someone who wants to buy your token from you for 52 U. If you sell your token for 52 U, you'll still only be able to buy 1 L of milk. So if you measure your wealth in milk, you have made no profit: in the past you had a token representing 1 L of milk, and today you still have a token representing 1 L of milk. Suppose now that in the past, when a token cost 50 U, a hamburger also cost 50 U. Suppose further that a hamburger now costs 52 U. So you can sell your token for 52 U, but that 52 U will still only buy you one hamburger. So, again, if you measure your wealth in hamburgers, your have made no profit. In the past, you could have sold your token and bought a hamburger; today, you can still sell your token and buy a hamburger, and you'll have nothing left over, so you have gained nothing. If, on the other hand, the price of a hamburger today is still 50 U, then you call sell your token for 52 U, buy a hamburger for 50 U, and still have 2 U left over. You have made a profit. What this all goes to show is that, in practice, the idea of \"\"profit\"\" depends on the overall economy, and whether you could exchange the currency units you have in your possession for a greater quantity of goods than you could in the past. Whether this is possible depends on the relative changes in price of various goods. In other words, if you get your money by selling Product A, and later you buy Product B, you may or may not make a profit depending on how the prices of the two products moved relative to one another. Also, in your hypothetical setup, the \"\"currency\"\" (the token) is directly linked to the value of a single good, so you can always at least get 1 L of milk for your token. Most real currency is not bound to specific goods like your milk token, so it is possible for your currency to lose value in an absolute sense. For instance, suppose you sell a book for $5. The $5 is not a \"\"book token\"\" and you cannot rely on being able to exchange it for a book in the future; in the future, all books may cost $10, and the prices of all goods may rise similarly, so your currency will actually be worth less no matter how you try to use it. This could happen with the milk token if the milkman announces that henceforth 1 L of milk will cost 2 tokens; your existing token suddenly loses half its value. In sum, it is easy to calculate whether you made a profit in currency units. What is harder is to calculate whether you made a profit in \"\"real terms\"\" (often referred to as \"\"real dollars\"\" or \"\"inflation-adjusted dollars\"\", or the equivalent in your favorite currency). The reason this is hard is because the idea of \"\"real dollars\"\" is fundamentally linked to the possibility of exchanging currency for goods (and services), and so it depends what goods you're buying. Inflation statistics published by governments and the like use a \"\"basket\"\" of goods to approximate the overall price movements in the economy as a whole.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "329675bf2c9692f2f78d55243aa4920e", "text": "\"Yes, long calls, and that's a good point. Let's see... if I bought one contract at the Bid price above... $97.13 at expiry of $96.43 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $113 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.00 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $77 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.14 option = in the money by 1-cent=$1/contract profit - option price(x100) = $1-$58 = $57 loss The higher strike prices have much lower losses if they expire with the underlying stock at- or near-the-money. So, they carry \"\"gentler\"\" downside potential, and are priced much higher to reflect that \"\"controlled\"\" risk potential. That makes sense. Thanks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebb41def0224a718e83f9f53e5a8e812", "text": "\"The textbook answer would be \"\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\"\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6102ca35a6adf578632c2b0f37dadc2f", "text": "\"Below I will try to explain two most common Binomial Option Pricing Models (BOPM) used. First of all, BOPM splits time to expiry into N equal sub-periods and assumes that in each period the underlying security price may rise or fall by a known proportion, so the value of an option in any sub-period is a function of its possible values in the following sub period. Therefore the current value of an option is found by working backwards from expiry date through sub-periods to current time. There is not enough information in the question from your textbook so we may assume that what you are asked to do is to find a value of a call option using just a Single Period BOPM. Here are two ways of doing this: First of all let's summarize your information: Current Share Price (Vs) = $70 Strike or exercise price (X) = $60 Risk-free rate (r) = 5.5% or 0.055 Time to maturity (t) = 12 months Downward movement in share price for the period (d) = $65 / $70 = 0.928571429 Upward movement in share price for the period (u) = 1/d = 1/0.928571429 = 1.076923077 \"\"u\"\" can be translated to $ multiplying by Vs => 1.076923077 * $70 = $75.38 which is the maximum probable share price in 12 months time. If you need more clarification here - the minimum and maximum future share prices are calculated from stocks past volatility which is a measure of risk. But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise. But the Value of an option at period 0 (also called option price) is a price you would normally pay in order to buy it. So, say, with a strike of $60 and Share Price of $70 the intrinsic value is $10, whereas if Share Price was $50 the intrinsic value would be $0. The option price or the value of a call option in both cases would be fixed. So we also need to find intrinsic option values when price falls to the lowest probable and rises to the maximum probable (Vcd and Vcu respectively) (Vcd) = $65-$60 = $5 (remember if Strike was $70 then Vcd would be $0 because nobody would exercise an option that is out of the money) (Vcu) = $75.38-$60 = $15.38 1. Setting up a hedge ratio: h = Vs*(u-d)/(Vcu-Vcd) h = 70*(1.076923077-0.928571429)/(15.38-5) = 1 That means we have to write (sell) 1 option for each share purchased in order to hedge the risks. You can make a simple calculation to check this, but I'm not going to go into too much detail here as the equestion is not about hedging. Because this position is risk-free in equilibrium it should pay a risk-free rate (5.5%). Then, the formula to price an option (Vc) using the hedging approach is: (Vs-hVc)(e^(rt))=(Vsu-hVcu) Where (Vc) is the value of the call option, (h) is the hedge ratio, (Vs) - Current Share Price, (Vsu) - highest probable share price, (r) - risk-free rate, (t) - time in years, (Vcu) - value of a call option on maturity at the highest probable share price. Therefore solving for (Vc): (70-1*Vc)(e^(0.055*(12/12))) = (75.38-1*15.38) => (70-Vc)*1.056540615 = 60 => 70-Vc = 60/1.056540615 => Vc = 70 - (60/1.056540615) Which is similar to the formula given in your textbook, so I must assume that using 1+r would be simply a very close approximation of the formula above. Then it is easy to find that Vc = 13.2108911402 ~ $13.21 2. Risk-neutral valuation: Another way to calculate (Vc) is using a risk-neutral approach. We first introduce a variable (p) which is a risk-neutral probability of an increase in share price. p = (e^(r*t)-d)/(u-d) so in your case: p = (1.056540615-0.928571429)/(1.076923077-0.928571429) = 0.862607107 Therefore using (p) the (Vc) would be equal: Vc = [pVcu+(1-p)Vcd]/(e^(rt)) => Vc = [(0.862607107*15.38)+(0.137392893*5)]/1.056540615 => Vc = 13.2071229185 ~ $13.21 As you can see it is very close to the hedging approach. I hope this answers your questions. Also bear in mind that there is much more to the option pricing than this. The most important topics to cover are: Multi-period BOPM Accounting for Dividends Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351", "text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96ffe6a551593b9b69ec6a68d6a2175b", "text": "You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd44af0ba38fa7d68265e7bc6603f04d", "text": "According to Active Equity Management by Zhou and Jain: When a stock pays dividend, the adjusted price in Yahoo makes the following adjustment: Let T be the ex-dividend date (the first date that the buyers of a stock will not receive the dividend) and T-1 be the last trading day before T. All prices before T are adjusted by a multiplier (C_{T-1} - d_T)/C_{T-1}, where C_{T-1} is the close price at T-1 and d_T is the dividend per share. This, of course means that the price before T decreases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dd31df3c95814f4714baab5f891da74", "text": "Yes, because most were holding it from 50-300 dollars cost pre-split, giving them a very healthy dividend yield today. The question is upside if you buy today, not upside from 5 years ago. I bought it at 300 too, but today other stocks are making me money...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cfb787181731c3db190ce83e73934f7", "text": "You can't. If there was a reliable way to identify an undervalued stock, then people would immediately buy it, its price would rise and it wouldn't be undervalued any more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebd1db8d92f3d8dc714ca36e204074bb", "text": "\"To a certain degree \"\"the only sure thing I know is the price I paid for the stock is the fair price at the time I buy it\"\" is absolutely right, by definition, and by the law of the free and efficient market and forces of supply and demand, freedom of public information about share price sensitive information, etc, etc, etc, and you've made a good point that eludes many investors I'd say. However, in practise, the market has many participants, and they will all be arriving at a different idea of what the \"\"fair price\"\" is by way of a slightly different analysis and slightly different information. In theory they all have the same information, but unfortunately in practise there is always some disparity. When one participant feels a stock is undervalued though the last thing they want to do is say so, instead they will start buying stock. They might feel it is undervalued by 20%, but that doesn't mean they'll keep buying and buying until it gets to 20%, they might push the price up just a little, then let the price drift down again, buy some more, relax, buy some more, etc. Over time the price will rise of course because the supply will become weaker, but even if the participant is correct about the 20% the price might have only risen 7% by the time they acquire all the stock they want given their risk models, market exposure and margin guidelines, etc, and it might be more than a year later before the price has actually risen to 20%, presumably because more and more other market participants have come to the same conclusion. The opposite can obviously also happen, a participant might dump stock it feels is over valued long before it hits the values it believes in. So right away you can see that pricing might not really reflect value, or \"\"fair price\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a02e1225d535f7294a762236a0c8f62c", "text": "&gt; “If the [Black-Scholes] formula is applied to extended time periods….it can produce absurd results.” &gt; -Warren Buffett, 2008 Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders I will give your question more thought, and come back with a quantitative solution. It may be most fruitful to apply a backward-induction options pricing model with detailed scenario-based discounted cash flow valuation models supported by pro forma financial statement and investment analysis. Nonetheless, my initial reaction is inline with Warren Buffett's belief that in the long-run an assumption of the Black-Scholes options pricing model is invalid (see [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.1657&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf) and [here](http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/business/economics/faculty/kurt/OptionValuationBuffetCritique_123113.pdf)). The perceived invalid assumption is that the distribution of expected future stock prices is *not* log-normal in the long-run. This non-log-normal view is especially true for a single company stock. This invalid assumption results in over-valuation of options prices from Black-Scholes - which makes it much better to sell long-term options than to buy them if market participants are using Black-Scholes pricing models. Again, without having done the math yet, my gut tells me if the option seller is using Black-Sholes pricing for long-dated options, you would be best to avoid buying them as the prices will be inflated compared to an economic reality fair price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f27ce88d949d7bc8765788775ccf6f2a", "text": "The problem you're talking about can be handled the same way now until better alternatives appear. I'm simply talking about improving the existing infrastructure to carry out these trades. Instead of holding a number on charles schwab account, you hold a token which is the same as a stock certificate of ownership.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04b7de29b81964c51f8be69e5e3d5cfe", "text": "\"I don't have a formula for anything like this, but it is important to note that the \"\"current value\"\" of any asset is really theoretical until you actually sell it. For example, let's consider a house. You can get an appraisal done on your house, where your home is inspected, and the sales of similar houses in your area are compared. However, this value is only theoretical. If you found yourself in a situation where you absolutely had to sell your house in one week, you would most likely have to settle for much less than the appraised value. The same hold true for collectibles. If I have something rare that I need cash for immediately, I can take it to a pawn shop and get cash. However, if I take my time and locate a genuinely interested collector, I can get more for it. This is comparable to someone who holds a significant percentage of shares in a publicly held corporation. If the current market value of your shares is $10 million, but you absolutely need to sell your entire stake today, you aren't going to get $10 million. But if you take your time selling a little at a time, you are more likely to get much closer to this $10 million number. A \"\"motivated seller\"\" means that the price will drop.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df41c539018f1fb6adcf160c270d71fe", "text": "Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42f339e971647b05cea2661ae64b1c55", "text": "\"The answer is yes. And the reason is if today's interest rates are lower than the interest rate (coupon) at which the bond was issued. The bond's \"\"lifetime value\"\" is 100 cents on the dollar. That's the principal repayment that the investor will get on the maturity date. But suppose the bond's coupon rate is 4% while today's interest rate is 3%. Then, people who bought the bond at 100 would get 4% on their money, while everyone else was getting 3%. To compensate, a three year bond would have to rise to almost 103 so that the so-called yield to maturity\"\" would be 3%. Then there would be a \"\"capital loss\"\" (from almost 103 to 100) that would exactly offset the extra interest, that is 1% \"\"more\"\" for three years. If today's interest rates are negative (as they were from time to time in the 1930s, and in the present decade), the \"\"negative\"\" interest rates will prevent the buyer from getting the \"\"lifetime value\"\" (as defined by the OP) of principal plus interest over the original life of the bond. This happens in a \"\"flight to quality\"\" situation, where people are willing to take a (small) capital loss on Treasuries in order to prevent a large possible loss from bank failures like those that took place in 2008.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
41df0bab5d11a87aecdeefdd547f8a58
Why buy bonds in a no-arbitrage market?
[ { "docid": "307191f5ae6dbc398f2cb2c30b15c1b7", "text": "Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers. This can mean that if every customer turns up to the bank to demand their money, that bank would be unable to pay. This situation is called a Bank Run. During such a situation, the bank would likely collapse and default. In many modern countries, the government put into place guarantees on the first xxx amount in saving accounts, but otherwise, your savings could be lost. There are many complex reasons to choose one instrument over another (including some I have avoided), even if at the outset, they could appear to have the same rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e81e513209a8bafc75b1ded70705dada", "text": "For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. 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. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4bd9d7b067b67dad5472849802226cc", "text": "\"If by \"\"putting money in the bank\"\" you mean regular savings or checking, then the bond locks a rate for a period of time, whereas your savings/checking rate can vary over that period. That variation might go for you or against you. Depending on your situation, you might prefer to take a determined rate to the variations. In addition, some bond types provide tax benefits (e.g. treasuries and municipal bonds) that change the effective return - You cannot just compare the interest rates. Finally, the bonds have \"\"resale\"\" value on the secondary market like stock - Depending on your outlook and strategy, you might by the bond for its value as a security rather than for the interest specifically just like you'd could buy a dividend-paying stock for its value as a security rather than for the dividend. In other words, you might think that bond values are going up, so you buy bonds with the intent of making a capital gain rather than counting on the interest returned. (The bond market does depend on the interest rate, so these are not independent factors.) I see the other answer that mentions the potential for your bank busting and you losing money beyond the FDIC insurance limit. The question doesn't specify U.S. Government bonds though, so I don't think that answer is generally good. It would be good in the case that you had a lot of money (especially an institution or foreign government) and you were specifically interested in U.S. Treasury bonds. Not so much if you invest in corporate bonds where you have no government insurance / assurance of any sort. Municipal bounds are also not backed by the U.S. (federal) government, but they may have some backing at the state level, depending on the state.\"", "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": "e96efcfab2cdc6ccf5a9aaf632736584", "text": "It is my understanding that banks pay less than the going rate on savings accounts and require that the person who takes out a loan pay more than the going rate. That is how the bank gets its money. Usually the going rate is affected by the current inflation rate (but that has not been true for the last few weeks). So that means that, typically, the money you have in the bank is, gradually, losing purchasing power as the bank typically pays you less than the inflation rate. So if you want your money to keep pace with inflation (or do a bit better) then you should buy bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "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": "238b8ff8728c9bc18c819b8167faf591", "text": "\"TL;DR: If your currently held bond's bid yield is smaller than another bonds' ask yield. You can swap your bond for bigger returns. Let's imagine you buy a long bond for $12000 (face value of $10000) and it has 6% coupon. The cash flows will have an internal return rate of 4.37%, this is the published \"\"ask yield\"\" in 2014 of the bond. After six years, prices have fallen, inflation and yields went up. So you can sell it for only $10000. If you would do it, the IRR will be only 2.55%, so there will be less return, than if you keep it. But if you would \"\"undo\"\" the transaction, then the future cash flows would yield 6.38%. This is the \"\"bid yield\"\" in 2020 of the bond. If you can find an offer that yields more than 6.38%, you have better returns if you sell your bond and invest that $10000 in the other bond. But as other answers pointed it out, you rarely have this opportunity as the market is very effective. (Assuming everything else is equal.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c224346604b8d4e798f6453fcb10053b", "text": "stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "020d22d766952e6008bf848df7c060d2", "text": "\"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy. Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea. Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds. At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate. In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated. There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing. That's at a whole market level. Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that \"\"bond rates\"\" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks. So I've talked about the bond rate. The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate. The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment. And vice versa.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6039901bd125dde0231f61f69b5073ed", "text": "\"Were you thinking of an annuity? They guarantee regular payments, usually after retirement. In any case, every investment has counterparty risk. Bonds guarantee payout, but the issuer could always default. This is why Treasury bonds have the lowest yields, the Treasury is the world's most trusted borrower. It's also why \"\"junk\"\" bonds have higher yields than investment grade and partially why longer duration bonds have higher yields. As mentioned, there's bank accounts, which gain interest and are insured by FDIC up to $250,000. If the bank folds, they'll be acquired by another and your account balance will simply transfer. Similar to bank accounts are money market funds. These are funds that purchase very short term \"\"paper\"\" (basically <90 day bonds). They maintain a share price of $1 and pay interest in the form of additional shares. These have the risk of \"\"breaking the buck\"\" where they need to sell assets at a loss to meet investor withdrawal demands and NAV drops below $1.00. Fortunately, that's a super rare occurance, but still definitely possible. Finally, there's one guy I've seen on TV pitching a no risk high yield investment. I can't remember the firm, but I am waiting to see them shut down for running a ponzi scheme.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8384d354271018c0de0dce360c7a96e0", "text": "\"Consider the futures market. Traders buy and sell gold futures, but very few contracts, relatively speaking, result in delivery. The contracts are sold, and \"\"Open interest\"\" dwindles to near zero most months as the final date approaches. The seller buys back his short position, the buyer sells off his longs. When I own a call, and am 'winning,' say the option that cost me $1 is now worth $2, I'd rather sell that option for even $1.95 than to buy 100 shares of a $148 stock. The punchline is that very few option buyers actually hope to own the stock in the end. Just like the futures, open interest falls as expiration approaches.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5980ed493aedbecbc092add2c4be4dc", "text": "QE is artificial demand for bonds, but as always when there are more buyers than sellers the price of anything goes up. When QE ends the price of bonds will fall because everyone will know that the biggest buyer in the market is no longer there. So price of bonds will fall. And therefore the interest rate on new bonds must increase to match the total return available to buyers in the secondary market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa30e29f8506005c072899b81da89854", "text": "Let's say today you buy the bond issued by StateX at 18$. Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that StateX is going towards default (if it happens it won't give you back not even the 18$ you invested). You (and others that bought the same bond like you) will get scared and try to sell the bond, but a potential buyer won't buy it for 18$ anymore they will risk maximum couple of bucks, therefor the price of your bond tomorrow is worth 2$ and not 18 anymore. Bond prices (even zero coupon ones) do fluctuate like shares, but with less turbolence (i.e. on the same period of time, ups and downs are smaller in percentage compared to shares) EDIT: Geo asked in the comment below what happens to the bond the FED rises the interest. It' very similar to what I explained above. Let's say today you buy the bond just issued by US treasury at 50$. Today the FED rewards money at 2%, and the bond you bought promised you a reward of 2% per year for 10 years (even if it's zero coupon, it will give you almost the same reward of one with coupons, the only difference is that it will give you all the money back at once, that is when the bond expires). Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that FED decided to rise the interest rates, and now on it lends money rewarding a wonderful 4% to investors. US treasury will also have to issue bonds at 4%. You can obviously keep your bond until expiration (and unless US goes default you will get back all your money until the last cent), but if you decide to sell your bond, you will find out that people won't be willing to pay 50$ anymore because on the market they can now buy the same type of bond (for the same period of time, 10 years) that give them 4% per year and not a poor 2% like yours. So people will be willing to pay maximum 40$ for your bond or less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74ede1bfc19a1ebc6de5dec45e802bfd", "text": "\"[...] are all bonds priced in such a way so that they all return the same amount (on average), after accounting for risk? In other words, do risk premiums ONLY compensate for the amount investors might lose? No. GE might be able to issue a bond with lower yield than, say, a company from China with no previous records of its presence in the U.S. markets. A bond price not only contains the risk of default, but also encompasses the servicability of the bond by the issuer with a specific stream of income, location of main business, any specific terms and conditions in the prospectus, e.g.callable or not, insurances against default, etc. Else for the same payoff, why would you take a higher risk? The payoff of a higher risk (not only default, but term structure, e.g. 5 years or 10 years, coupon payments) bond is more, to compensate for the extra risk it entails for the bondholder. The yield of a high risk bond will always be higher than a bond with lower risk. If you travel back in time, to 2011-2012, you would see the yields on Greek bonds were in the range of 25-30%, to reflect the high risk of a Greek default. Some hedge funds made a killing by buying Greek bonds during the eurozone crisis. If you go through the Efficient frontier theory, your argument is a counter statement to it. Same with individual bonds, or a portfolio of bonds. You always want to be compensated for the risk you take. The higher the risk, the higher the compensation, and vice versa. When investors buy the bond at this price, they are essentially buying a \"\"risk free\"\" bond [...] Logically yes, but no it isn't, and you shouldn't make that assumption.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7752f67b871bc3bc345990de3f5221fa", "text": "why would anyone buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? 1) You are making the assumption that interest rates has bottom out hence there is no further possibility of it going down further , i mean who expected Lehman Brother to go bankrupt 2) Long term investors who are able to wait for the bad times of the bond market to end and in the mean time dont mind some dividend payment of 2-3%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4dfadeeefad1c3988f5f9ae9342142f", "text": "Why does selling a bond drive up the yield? The bond will pay back a fixed amount when it comes due. The yield is a comparison of what you pay for the bond and what will be repaid when it matures (assuming no default). Why does the yield go up if the country is economically unstable? If the country's economy is unstable, that increases the chance that they will default and not pay the full value of the bonds when they mature. People are selling them now at a loss instead of waiting for a default later for a greater loss. So if you think Greece is not going to default as it's highly likely a country would completely default, wouldn't it make sense to hold onto the bonds? Only if you also think that they will pay back the full value at maturity. It's possible that they pay some, but not all. It's also possible that they will default. It's also possible that they will get kicked out of the Euro and start printing Drachmas again, and try to pay the bonds back with those which could devalue the bonds through inflation. The market is made of lots of smart people. If they think there are reasons to worry, there probably are. That doesn't mean they can predict the future, it just means that they are pricing the risk with good information. If you are smarter than the herd, by all means, bet against them and buy the bonds now. It can indeed be lucrative if you are right, and they are wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dac42c465bf5780fb4ab730b4f3be366", "text": "There is another reason why an investor might buy negative yielding bonds: if the investor expects that bond yields will go even further negative, then they are also expecting the price of the bond to go up. They can resell the bond later at a profit. As an example, they may expect an increase in central bank bond purchases to drive yields lower and prices higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "238acb579177dbbd1370975042f0620f", "text": "Usually Bonds are used to raised capital when a lender doesn't want to take on sole risk of lending. If you are looking at raising anything below 10m bonds are not a option because the bank will just extend you a line of credit.", "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": "8af32a8a83a77bd924097fd3bf67c2b8", "text": "Is it possible to move money from NRE to NRO account Yes you can move money from NRE to NRO without any issue. You can't do the other way round. i.e. Move money from NRO to NRE. I would like to move USD earning to NRE Yes you can further move money in NRE to NRO account Yes you can I am planning to give NRO account to HDFC Home loan for EMI processing Yes you can. Depending on your long term plan it may not be a good idea. For example if you were to sell the house you cannot move the funds into NRE and outside of India without some amount of paperwork. However if you pay the EMI via NRE account, on the sale of house, you can transfer the funds into NRE account to the extent of the loan paid and the Original downpayment [if made from NRE account]. also I can deposit money from other savings account to NRO; As an NRI, you can't hold ordinary savings account in India. This is violation of norms. Please have any/all savings account in India converted to NRO at the earliest.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
be81bc3d2c76925559417d2b1a9c17a8
Should I start investing in property with $10,000 deposit and $35,000 annual wage
[ { "docid": "1ae3cb543558e6c150f706998416094c", "text": "You want to buy a house for $150,000. It may be possible to do this with $10,000 and a 3.5% downpayment, but it would be a lot better to have $40,000 and make a 20% downpayment. That would give you a cushion in case house prices fall, and there are often advantages to a 20% downpayment (lower rate; less mandatory insurance). You have an income of $35,000 and expenses of $23,000 (if you are careful with the money--what if you aren't?). You should have savings of either $17,500 or $11,500 in case of emergencies. Perhaps you simply weren't mentioning that. Note that you also need at least $137 * 26 = $3562 more to cover mortgage payments, so $15,062 by the expenses standard. This is in addition to the $40,000 for downpayment and closing costs. What do you plan to do if there is a problem with the new house, e.g. you need a new roof? Or smaller expenses like a new furnace or appliance? A plumbing problem? Damages from a storm? What if the tenants' teenage child has a party and trashes the place? What if your tenants stop paying rent but refuse to move out, trashing the place while being evicted? Your emergency savings need to be able to cover those situations. You checked comps (comparable properties). Great! But notice that you are looking at a one bathroom property for $150,000 and comparing to $180,000 houses. Consider that you may not get the $235 for that house, which is cheaper. Perhaps the rent for that house will only be $195 or less, because one bathroom doesn't really support three bedrooms of people. While real estate can be part of a portfolio, balance would suggest that much more of your portfolio be in things like stocks and bonds. What are you doing for retirement? Are you maxing out any tax-advantaged options that you have available? It might be better to do that before entering the real estate market. I am a 23 year old Australian man with a degree in computer science and a steady job from home working as a web developer. I'm a bit unclear on this. What makes the job steady? Is it employment with a large company? Are you self-employed with what has been a steady flow of customers? Regardless of which it is, consider the possibility of a recession. The company can lay you off (presumably you are at the bottom of the seniority). The new customers may be reluctant to start new projects while their cash flow is restrained. And your tenants may move out. At the same time. What will you do then? A mortgage is an obligation. You have to pay it regardless. While currently flush, are you the kind of flush that can weather a major setback? I would feel a lot better about an investment like this if you had $600,000 in savings and were using this as a complementary investment to broaden your portfolio. Even if you had $60,000 in savings and would still have substantial savings after the purchase. This feels more like you are trying to maximize your purchase. Money burning a hole in your pocket and trying to escape. It would be a lot safer to stick to securities. The worst that happens there is that you lose your investment (and it's more likely that the value will be reduced but recover). With mortgages, you can lose your entire investment and then some. Yes, the price may recover, but it may do so after the bank forecloses on the mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "924b595836b4404f4be44823643bf657", "text": "In general people make a few key mistakes with property: 1) Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well. 2) Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth. 3) Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. 4) Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. 5) Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. 6) Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20yr+ contracts/activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential – particularly in fast moving jobs like software development. Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close, it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6adfc37167cca13c23799cd8c226a6d5", "text": "I would strongly, strongly advise against it. Others here are answering the question of, having decided to invest in property, how one ought to ensure that one invests in the right property. What has not really been discussed here is the issue of diversification. There are a number of serious risks to property investment. In fact, it is one of the riskiest types of investment. You face more of almost every type of risk in property than maybe any other asset class. It is one thing to take on those risks as part of a diverse portfolio including other asset classes. It is quite another - extremely irresponsible - thing to take on those risks as your sole investment, when your portfolio is in its infancy. So no, do not invest in property when you lack any other investments. Absolutely not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "579f9a0a5a958b3a896d6f07239b2853", "text": "\"I want to caveat that I am not an active investor in Australia, you most likely should seek out other investors in your market and ask them for advice/mentorship, but since you came here I can give you some generalized advice. When investing in real estate there are a two main rules of thumb to quickly determine if the property will be a good investment. The 50% rule and the 2% (or 1%) rule. The 50% rules says that in general 50% if the income from the property will go to expenses not including debt service. If you are bringing in $1000 a month 500 of that will go to utilities, taxes, repair, capital expenditures, advertising, lawn care, etc. That leave you with 500 to pay the mortgage and if anything is left that can be cash flow. As this is your first property and it is in \"\" a relatively bad neighbourhood\"\" you might consider bumping that up to 60% just to make sure you have padding. The 1 or 2% rules says that the monthly rent should be 1(or 2) percent of the purchase price in this case the home is bought at 150,000. If the rent is 1,500 a month it might be a good investment but if it rents for 3,000 a month it probably is a good investment. There are other factors to consider if a home meets the 2% rule it might be in a rough neighborhood which increases turnover which in general is the biggest expense in an investment property. If a property meets one or both of these rules you should take a closer look at it and with proper due diligence determine that it is a deal. These rules are just hard and fast guidelines to property analysis, they may need to be adapted to you market. For example these rules will not hold in most (all?) big cities.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "1cc9fda9a30d5e545deb8607f0ed6bc2", "text": "I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely). For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: - 1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD = Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c255f9fe7a02eec2d330e649199f09dc", "text": "Unfortunately, in this market environment your goal is not very realistic. At the moment real interest rates are negative (and have been for some time). This means if you invest in something that will pay out for sure, you can expect to earn less than you lose through inflation. In other words, if you save your $50K, when you withdraw it in a few years you will be able to buy less with it then than you can now. You can invest in risky securities like stocks or mutual funds. These assets can easily generate 10% per year, but they can (and do) also generate negative returns. This means you can and likely will lose money after investing in them. There's an even better chance that you will make money, but that varies year by year. If you invest in something that expects to make 10% per year (meaning it makes that much on average), it will be extremely risky and many years it will lose money, perhaps a lot of it. That's the way risk is. Are you comfortable taking on large amounts of risk (good chances of losing a lot of your money)? You could make some kind of real investment. $50K is a little small to buy real estate, but you may be able to find something like real estate that can generate income, especially if you use it as a down payment to borrow from the bank. There is risk in being a landlord as well, of course, and a lot of work. But real investments like that are a reasonable alternative to financial markets for some people. Another possibility is to just keep it in your bank account or something else with no risk and take $5000 out per year. It will only last you 10 years that way, but if you are not too young, that will be a significant portion of your life. If you are young, you can work and add to it. Unfortunately, financial markets don't magically make people rich. If you make a lot of money in the market, it's because you took a risk and got lucky. If you make a comfortable amount with no risk, it means you invested in a market environment very different from what we see today. --------- EDIT ------------ To get an idea of what risk free investments (after inflation) earn per year at various horizons see this table at the treasury. At the time of this writing you would have to invest in a security with maturity almost 10 years in order to break even with inflation. Beating it by 10% or even 3% per year with minimal risk is a pipe dream.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c20caa866e1e2694a2da247c5e9f80a9", "text": "A common rule of thumb is the 28/36 ratio. It's described here. In your case, with a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that means that you should spend no more than 28% of it, or £1,167 per month on housing. You may be able to swing a bit more because you have no debts and a modest amount in your savings. The 36% part comes in as the amount you can spend servicing all your debt, including mortgage. In your case, based on a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that'd be £1,500 per month. Again, that is to cover your housing costs and any additional debt you are servicing. So, you need to figure out how much you could bring in through rent to make up the rest. As at least one other person has commented, the rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5 - 3 times your income. I personally think you are not a good candidate for a mortgage of the size you are discussing. That said, I no longer live in England. If you could feel fairly secure getting someone to pay you enough in rent to bring down your total mortgage and loan repayment amounts to £1,500 or so a month, you may want to consider it. Remember, though, that it may not always be easy to find renters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72dd5b02c4594d20c11789f4b6b44525", "text": "Financial advice from good advisers sounds a good idea. Talk to two or three before taking their advice... their services and advice are surprisingly and sometimes alarmingly diverse. Gaining money from renting out property is harder than it seems and 10% sounds very ambitious after all costs. Buying abroad especially is a challenge to make money on.. You need to be lucky, and have a strong flair to do it despite all. Bear in mind santander pay 3% on current accounts by the way. Have you ever thought about living abroad somewhere stable or cheap or downsizing. A part time job or low pressure job might top up a limited pension for long enough to find a long term solution while giving you the feeling of starting retirement. Just some thoughts... think it through carefully .. weigh the risks.. be realistic and good luck. Jonjo", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55ecdda1e229a73cd562b64220076832", "text": "As user14469 mentions you would have to decide what type of properties you would like to invest in. Are you after negatively geared properties that may have higher long term growth potential (usually within 15 to 20km from major cities), or after positive cash-flow properties which may have a lower long term growth potential (usually located more than 20km from major cities). With negative geared properties your rent from the property will not cover the mortgage and other costs, so you will have to supplement it through your income. The theory is that you can claim a tax deduction on your employment income from the negative gearing (benefits mainly those on higher tax brackets), and the potential long term growth of the property will make up for the negative gearing over the long term. If you are after these type of properties Michael Yardney has some books on the subject. On the other hand, positive cash-flow properties provide enough rental income to cover the mortgage and other costs. They put cash into your pockets each week. They don't have as much growth potential as more inner city properties, but if you stick to the outer regions of major cities, instead of rural towns, you will still achieve decent long term growth. If you are after these type of properties Margaret Lomas has some books on the subject. My preference is for cash-flow positive properties, and some of the areas user14469 has mentioned. I am personally invested in the Penrith and surrounding areas. With negatively geared properties you generally have to supplement the property with your own income and generally have to wait for the property price to increase so you build up equity in the property. This then allows you to refinance the additional equity so you can use it as deposits to buy other properties or to supplement your income. The problem is if you go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth, you may have to wait quite a few years for your equity to increase substantially. With positively geared properties, you are getting a net income from the property every week so using none of your other income to supplement the property. You can thus afford to buy more properties sooner. And even if the properties go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth you are still getting extra income each week. Over the long term these properties will also go up and you will have the benefit of both passive income and capital gains. I also agree with user14469 regarding doing at least 6 months of research in the area/s you are looking to buy. Visit open homes, attend auctions, talk to real estate agents and get to know the area. This kind of research will beat any information you get from websites, books and magazines. You will find that when a property comes onto the market you will know what it is worth and how much you can offer below asking price. Another thing to consider is when to buy. Most people are buying now in Australia because of the record low interest rates (below 5%). This is causing higher demand in the property markets and prices to rise steadily. Many people who buy during this period will be able to afford the property when interest rates are at 5%, but as the housing market and the economy heat up and interest rates start rising, they find it hard to afford the property when interest rate rise to 7%, 8% or higher. I personally prefer to buy when interest rates are on the rise and when they are near their highs. During this time no one wants to touch property with a six foot pole, but all the owners who bought when interest rates where much lower are finding it hard to keep making repayments so they put their properties on the market. There ends up being low demand and increased supply, causing prices to fall. It is very easy to find bargains and negotiate lower prices during this period. Because interest rates will be near or at their highs, the economy will be starting to slow down, so it will not be long before interest rates start dropping again. If you can afford to buy a property at 8% you will definitely be able to afford it at 6% or lower. Plus you would have bought at or near the lows of the price cycle, just before prices once again start increasing as interest rates drop. Read and learn as much as possible from others, but in the end make up your own mind on the type of properties and areas you prefer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f826bafa5b768c0119ad66f18bd1b81d", "text": "Major things to consider: If you're expecting to look at the property market: it might prove to be sensible to start doing it now, since the market is just recovering, and (IMHO warning -I'm not a professional investor, just a random guy on the internet) prices still hasn't caught up with value fundamentals. check out cash ISA's for a 24-36 month timeframe; most do a reasonable 3-4% AER, with the current inflation rate being around 4%, this will, at the very least, make sure your money doesn't loose it's purchasing power. Finally, a word of caution: SIPPs have a rather rubbish AER rates. This, by itself, wouldn't be much of a problem on a 30-40 years timeframe, but keep the (current, and historically strictly monotonically increasing) 4% inflation rate in mind: this implies the purchasing power of any money tied in these vehicles will loose it's purchasing power, in a compounding manner. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78073fba775581c025e7fb35c48e3db3", "text": "I don't know enough about taxes and real-state in the Netherlands to be super helpful in determining whether or not a rental property is a good investment. One thing for certain is that there's some risk in spending everything on a rental property. It's wise to have some buffer, an emergency fund of 3-6 months expenses. If things got dire, you'd still need to live somewhere until your tenant was gone, and you'd want to be able to handle any major repairs that crop up. So, even if it is a good idea to buy a rental property, you should probably wait until doing so doesn't leave you without a healthy buffer. As for owning a rental, you described a scenario where you'd get 6% income on your investment each year if there were zero expenses associated with owning the property. Are there property taxes? Is there a monthly cost to maintain the building the apartment is in? Are rental incomes taxed more heavily than other investment income? Just be aware of the full financial picture before deciding if it's a worthwhile investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "181412d0dfd9b6ebf68ab4c0aa3b8b44", "text": "There is no generic formula as such, but you can work it out using all known incomes and expenses and by making some educated assuption. You should generaly know your buying costs, which include the purchase price, legal fees, taxes (in Australia we have Stamp Duty, which is a large state based tax when you purchase a property). Other things to consider include estimates for any repairs and/or renovations. Also, you should look at the long term growth in your area and use this as an estimate of your potential growth over the period you wish to hold the property, and estimate the agent fees if you were to sell, and the depreciation on the building. These things, including the agent fees when selling and building depreciation, will all be added or deducted to your cost base to determine the amount of capital gain when and if you sell the property. You then need to multiply this gain by the capital gains tax rate to determine the capital gains tax you may have to pay. From all the items above you will be able to estimate the net capital gain (after all taxes) you could expect to make on the property over the period you are looking to hold it for. In regards to holding and renting the property, things you will need to consider include the rent, the long term growth of rent in your area, and all the expenses including, loan fees and interest, insurance, rates, land tax, and an estimate of the annual maintenance cost per year. Also, you would need to consider any depreciation deductions you can claim. Other things you will need to consider, is the change in these values as time goes by, and provide an estimate for these in your calculations. Any increase in the value of land will increase the amount of rates and the land tax you pay, and generally your insurance and maintenance costs will increase with time. However, your interest and mortgage repayments will reduce over time. Will your rent increases cover your increases in the expenses. From all the items above you should be able to work out an estimate of your net rental gain or loss for each year. Again do this for the number of years you are looking to hold the property for and then sum up the total to give a net profit or loss. If there is a net loss from the income, then you need to consider if the net capital gain will cover these losses and still give you a reasonable return over the period you will own the property. Below is a sample calculation showing most of the variables I have discussed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b214c21bfffcc07a9824cab573471df1", "text": "That is a decision you need to make, but some of the pros and cons you could consider to help your decision making include: Pros: If bought at the right time in the property cycle and in a good growth area, it can help you grow your net worth much quicker than having money in the bank earning near zero interest. You would be replacing rent payments with mortgage payments and if your mortage payments are less than your current rent you will have additional money to pay for any expenses on the property and have a similar cashflow as you do now. You will be able to deduct your interest payments on the mortgage against your income if you are in the USA, thus reducing the tax you pay. You will have the security of your own house and not have to worry about moving if the landlord wants you out after your lease expires. Cons: If bought in a bad area and at the top of the property cycle you may never make any capital gains on the property and in fact may lose money on it long term. If the mortgage payments are more than your current rent you may be paying more especially at the start of your mortgage. If you buy a house you are generally stuck in one spot, it will be harder to move to different areas or states as it can cost a lot of money and time to sell and buy elsewhere, if renting you can generally just give notice and find a new place to rent. Property maintenance costs and taxes could be a drain on your finances, especially if the mortgage repayments are more than your current rent. If your mortgage payments and property expenses are way more than your current rent, it may reduce what you could be investing in other areas to help increase your net worth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5e1360f3a804475b28a1f26149f104b", "text": "Anybody that offers a bigger return than a deposit claiming 100% safe is a fraud. There is always a risk: Yes, you can gain 30% in a year, but nobody can guarantee that you'll repeat that gain the next. My own experience (and I do take risks), one year I go up, the next year I go down...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0a4f30fe175ac4fea44cfdb318900d9", "text": "When buying investment properties there are different levels of passive investment involved. At one end you have those that will buy an investment property and give it to a real estate agent to manage and don't want to think of it again (apart from watching the rent come in every week). At the other end there are those that will do everything themselves including knocking on the door to collect the rent. Where is the best place to be - well somewhere in the middle. The most successful property investors treat their investment properties like a business. They handle the overall management of the properties and then have a team taking care of the day-to-day nitty gritty of the properties. Regarding the brand new or 5 to 10 year old property, you are going to pay a premium for the brand new. A property that is 5 years old will be like new but without the premium. I once bought a unit which was 2 to 3 years old for less than the original buyer bought it at brand new. Also you will still get the majority of the depreciation benefits on a 5 year old property. You also should not expect too much maintenance on a 5 to 10 year old property. Another option you may want to look at is Defence Housing. They are managed by the Department of Defence and you can be guaranteed rent for 10 years or more, whether they have a tenant in the property or not. They also carry out all the maintenance on the property and restore it to original condition once their contract is over. The pitfall is that you will pay a lot more for the management of these properties (up to 15% or more). Personally, I would not go for a Defence Housing property as I consider the fees too high and would not agree with some of their terms and conditions. However, considering your emphasis on a passive investment, this may be an option for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47cea5f4c2bd6ef611d52e55975e7338", "text": "I have done something similar to this myself. What you are suggesting is a sound theory and it works. The issues are (which is why it's the reason not everyone does it) : The initial cost is great, many people in their 20s or 30s cannot afford their own home, let alone buy second properties. The time to build up a portfolio is very long term and is best for a pension investment. it's often not best for diversification - you've heard not putting all your eggs in one basket? With property deposits, you need to put a lot of eggs in to make it work and this can leave you vulnerable. there can be lots of work involved. Renovating is a huge pain and cost and you've already mentioned tennants not paying! unlike a bank account or bonds/shares etc. You cannot get to your savings/investments quickly if you need to (or find an opportunity) But after considering these and deciding the plunge is worth it, I would say go for it, be a good landlord, with good quality property and you'll have a great nest egg. If you try just one and see how it goes, with population increase, in a safe (respectable) location, the value of the investment should continue to rise (which it doesn't in a bank) and you can expect a 5%+ rental return (very hard to find in cash account!) Hope it goes well!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f401b03c9a02d7b203368bb932406d81", "text": "In no particular order - to help you on deciding whether to invest or not: Building Wealth One House at a Time Buy & Rent Foreclosures: 3 Million Net Worth, 22,000 Net Per Month, In 7 Years...You can too! Landlording on Auto-Pilot: A Simple, No-Brainer System for Higher Profits and Fewer Headaches and for when/if you actually decide to start: Investing in Real Estate I've read all the books above and they all have a little bit of information here and there to take out - although they have some redudency it is the good type you need to learn/know anyway. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acbae95606e012afa793a1d678fdec38", "text": "I'm pretty sure you are don't actually plan to put £120,000 into a zero interest account, because when you take inflation into account, in 20 years, then £120,000 won't be worth anywhere near that amount. For its value to grow you need the interest rate to exceed the rate of inflation and so paying 20% (or even 40%) tax on the interest can make the difference between whether being richer and getting poorer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cd11f8d10fca96e0b515190f11ccc66", "text": "I wouldn't go into a stock market related investment if you plan on buying a house in 4-5 years, you really need to tie money up in stocks for 10 years plus to be confident of a good return. Of course, you might do well in stocks over 4-5 years but historically it's unlikely. I'd look for a safe place to save some money for the deposit, the more deposit you can get the better as this will lower your loan to valuation (LTV) and therefore you may find you get a better interest rate for your mortgage. Regards the pension, are you paying the maximum you can into the company scheme? If not then top that up as much as you can, company schemes tend to be good as they have low charges, but check the documentation about that and make sure that is the case. Failing that stakeholder pension schemes can also have very low charges, have a look at what's available.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
9e6a3212c8eb117cbb33e404dc5046a1
Protecting savings from exceptional taxes
[ { "docid": "20e4a5eb388c4491e671bc71b905befc", "text": "\"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the \"\"small\"\" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get \"\"haircuts\"\". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just \"\"erase\"\" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93bd1971ca0c84f2a6edc1cea926be7d", "text": "Don't worry. The Cyprus situation could only occur because those banks were paying interest rates well above EU market rates, and the government did not tax them at all. Even the one-time 6.75% tax discussed is comparable to e.g. Germany and the Netherlands, if you average over the last 5 years. The simple solution is to just spread your money over multiple banks, with assets at each bank staying below EUR 100.000. There are more than 100 banks large enough that they'll come under ECB supervision this year; you'd be able to squirrel away over 10 million there. (Each branch of the Dutch Rabobank is insured individually, so you could even save 14 million there alone, and they're collectively AAA-rated.) Additionally, those savings will then be backed by more than 10 governments, many of which are still AAA-rated. Once you have to worry about those limits, you should really talk to an independent advisor. Investing in AAA government bonds is also pretty safe. The examples given by littleadv all involve known risky bonds. E.g. Argentina was on a credit watch, and paying 16% interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aface92198df28c3d0d1148bbc9a3571", "text": "Over the last few years I've read quite a bit about monetary history. I've developed two very important rules from this study: If you follow these two rules you will be able to weather almost any governmental or banking crisis.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "eb0aaf07385a614da2199677cdbf2c77", "text": "Look into the Coverdell Education Savings Account (ESA). This is like a Roth IRA for higher education expenses. Withdrawals are tax free when used for qualified expenses. Contributions are capped at $2000/year per beneficiary (not per account) so it works well for young kids, and not so well for kids about to go to College. This program (like all tax law) are prone to changes due to action (or inaction) in the US Congress. Currently, some of the benefits are set to sunset in 2010 though they are expected to be renewed in some form by Congress this year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29079941bcf673433726120d468485ea", "text": "If you have multiple accounts, you have to empty them all before you can deduct any losses. Your loss is not a capital loss, its a deduction. It is calculated based on the total amount you have withdrawn from all your Roth IRA's, minus the total basis. It will be subject to the 2% AGI treshhold (i.e.: if your AGI is > 100K, none of it is deductible, and you have to itemize to get it). Bottom line - think twice. Summarizing the discussion in comments: If you have a very low AGI, I would guess that your tax liability is pretty low as well. Even if you deduct the whole $2K, and all of it is above the other deductions you have (which in turn is above the standard deduction of almost $6K), you save say $300 if you're in 15% tax bracket. That's the most savings you have. However I'm assuming something here: I'm assuming that you're itemizing your deductions already and they're above the standard deduction. This is very unlikely, with such a low income. You don't have state taxes to deduct, you probably don't spend a lot to deduct sales taxes, and I would argue that with the low AGI you probably don't own property, and if you do - you don't have a mortgage with a significant interest on it. You can be in 15% bracket with AGI between (roughly) $8K and $35K, i.e.: you cannot deduct between $160 and $750 of the $2K, so it's already less than the maximum $300. If your AGI is $8K, the deduction doesn't matter, EIC might cover all of your taxes anyway. If your AGI is $30K, you can deduct only $1400, so if you're in the 15% bracket - you saved $210. That, again, assuming it's above your other deductions, which in turn are already above the standard deduction. Highly unlikely. As I said in the comments - I do not think you can realistically save on taxes because of this loss in such a manner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a9e5e503ff2d51c31561721478e15c2", "text": "You can't max out your retirement savings. There are vehicles that aren't tax-advantaged that you can fund after you've exhausted the tax-advantaged ones. Consider how much you want to put into these vehicles. There are disadvantages as well as advantages. The rules on these can change at any time and can make it harder for you to get your money out. How's your liquid (cash) emergency fund? It sounds like you're in a position to amass a good one. Don't miss this opportunity. Save like crazy while you can. Kids make this harder. Paying down your mortgage will save you interest, of course, but make sure you're not cash-poor as a result. If something happens to your income(s), the bank will still foreclose on you even if you only owe $15,000. A cash cushion buys you time.", "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": "1a827f57147977cbd2526a8de675299a", "text": "If your regular withholding is not enough to cover your tax due, then you can withhold extra taxes to avoid owing anything the following April 15. Alternatively, you may make estimated tax payments to avoid owing anything the following year. Some taxpayers will be required to make estimated payments, typically when the tax due will be sufficiently larger than the amount of withholding. If your husband says that you owed $5,000 in April, then he wants you both to withhold $2,500 for the entire year. If all your income is shared, then that makes sense. But if your income is not entirely shared and your personal luxury expenses come from your income, then this sounds a little unfair (you are paying some of the tax on his income). If you don't share 100% of your income, then he should withhold more extra than you do (something more like $2,700 for him and $2,300 for you, depending on the details). If you share everything, then all the income and all the taxes are shared so the individual accounting matters little. Yes, if you overpay taxes, you may get a refund. Do not do this, that's just an interest-free loan to the government. Instead, put the extra money into a savings account of your choice and withdraw it whenever you want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95e90433ef39fdd56ddc0a47483bb000", "text": "Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money. What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c60dde0bae237546b457df7b10b7b21c", "text": "Ditto @MichaelBorgwardt Just to get concrete: I just checked one bank in India and they say they are paying 4% on savings accounts. I don't know what you're getting or if 4% is typical in India, but it's at least an example. So if the bank pays interest based on average daily balance, and you left the money in the bank for a week, you'd get 4%/52 = .077%. So on Rs 95,000 that would be Rs 73. I live in the US where typical interest on a savings account today is about 1%. So an equivalent amount of money -- I think that would be about $1,500 -- would get 1/52 of 1%, or 29 cents. Don't leave the lights turned on while you do the calculations -- you'll spend more on the electricity than you make on the interest. :-) ** Addendum ** This suddenly reminds me ... I read a news story a few years ago about a man who was expecting a tax refund check from the IRS of a few hundred dollars, and when the check arrived it was for several million. Well obviously it was a mistake. But he came up with the clever idea: Deposit the check in an interest-bearing account. Promptly contact the IRS, inform them of the mistake, and ask how and where to go about returning the money. Hope that it takes at least a few days for them to figure everything out. Then keep the interest accumulated on the several-million dollars for the time that he had the money. And as he contacted them immediately about the error, they can't say he was trying to hide anything. It was a nice try, but it didn't work. They demanded he send them the interest as well as the principle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "068bed5880ce9e76d2f629508242671d", "text": "You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ed949c726920255e6c945d8db1f3e72", "text": "\"Your #1 problem is the Government both in it's form as a taxation outfit and as a 'law and order' outfit. You'd be very surprised at how fast a bank seizes your bank account in response to a court order. Purchase 100 Mexican 50 Peso Gold (1.2 oz/ea). These coins are cheap (lowest cost to get into) and will not be reportable on sale to taxing authorities. That money is out of the banking system and legal system(s). Do not store them in a bank! You need to find a tax strategist, probably a former IRS agent / CPA type. With the rest remaining money... There's an old saying, Don't fight the Fed. As well as \"\"The trend is your friend\"\". So, the Fed wants all savers fully invested right now (near 0 interest rates). When investing, I find that if you do exactly opposite what you think is the smart thing, that's the best thing. Therefore, it follows: 1) Don't fight the Fed 2) Do opposite of smart 3) Do: Fight the Fed (and stay 100% out of the market and in cash) We're looking like Japan so could remain deflationary for decades to come. Cash is king...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "085e2dffab276a036853dd071ebe34cc", "text": "\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \"\"realized loss\"\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \"\"cost basis\"\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\"", "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": "9261b5cc8faec072e234aace913f48c3", "text": "@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17c82c8934c11cba29787c4df49b7d52", "text": "In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd6eecc9738b213f4a0e3ccc7411900f", "text": "You have two different operations going on: They each have of a set of rules regarding amounts, timelines, taxes, and penalties. The excess money can't be recharacterized except during a specific window of time. I would see a tax professional to work through all the details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a17f801749c61e70721be29bae27a51d", "text": "There is the underpayment penalty, and of course the general risk of any balloon-style loan. While you think that you have enough self-discipline, you never know what may happen that may prevent you from having enough cash at hands to pay the accumulated tax at the end of the year. If you try to do more risky investments (trying to maximize the opportunity) you may lose some of the money, or have some other kind of emergency that may preempt the tax payment.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
209521d60a20c2c0a3eb0692619577c6
The Asset Allocation Paradox
[ { "docid": "5356ba20ab62d86c8a3508d557ea4cbb", "text": "Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "846d367583fbcb6cd2fabd6e2d9345f9", "text": "\"I recommend you take a look at this lecture (really, the whole series is enlightening), from Swenson. He identifies 3 sources of returns: diversification, timing and selection. He appears to discard timing and selection as impossible. A student kinda calls him out on this. Diversification reduces risk, not increase returns. It turns out they did time the market, by shorting .com's before the bubble, and real estate just before the downturn. In 1990, Yale started a \"\"Absolute Return\"\" unit and allocated like 15 percent to it, mostly by selling US equities, that specializes in these sorts of hedging moves. As for why you might employ managers for specific areas, consider that the expense ratio Wall Street charges you or me still represent a very nice salary when applied to the billions in Yale's portfolio. So they hire internally to reduce expenses, and I'm sure they're kept busy. They also need people to sell off assets to maintain ratios, and figuring out which ones to sell might take specialized knowledge. Finally, in some areas, you functionally cannot invest without management. For example, Yale has a substantial allocation in private equity, and by definition that doesn't trade on the open market. The other thing you should consider is that for all its diversification, Yale lost 25 percent of their portfolio in 2009. For a technique that's supposed to reduce volatility, they seem to have a large range of returns over the past five years.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "ef0e9ae89d9c52b31c87383d6b21d9af", "text": "Financial advisers like to ask lots of questions and get nitty-gritty about investment objectives, but for the most part this is not well-founded in financial theory. Investment objectives really boils down to one big question and an addendum. The big question is how much risk you are willing to tolerate. This determines your expected return and most characteristics of your portfolio. The addendum is what assets you already have (background risk). Your portfolio should contain things that hedge that risk and not load up on it. If you expect to have a fixed income, some extra inflation protection is warranted. If you have a lot of real estate investing, your portfolio should avoid real estate. If you work for Google, you should avoid it in your portfolio or perhaps even short it. Given risk tolerance and background risk, financial theory suggests that there is a single best portfolio for you, which is diversified across all available assets in a market-cap-weighted fashion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea037e297eea30bc449f3febfb1d4090", "text": "\"When you have multiple assets available and a risk-free asset (cash or borrowing) you will always end up blending them if you have a reasonable objective function. However, you seem to have constrained yourself to 100% investment. Combine that with the fact that you are considering only two assets and you can easily have a solution where only one asset is desired in the portfolio. The fact that you describe the US fund as \"\"dominating\"\" the forign fund indicates that this may be the case for you. Ordinarily diversification benefits the overall portfolio even if one asset \"\"dominates\"\" another but it may not in your special case. Notice that these funds are both already highly diversified, so all you are getting is cross-border diversification by getting more than one. That may be why you are getting the solution you are. I've seen a lot of suggested allocations that have weights similar to what you are using. Finding an optimal portfolio given a vector of expected returns and a covariance matrix is very easy, with some reliable results. Fancy models get pretty much the same kinds of answers as simple ones. However, getting a good covariance matrix is hard and getting a good expected return vector is all but impossible. Unfortunately portfolio results are very sensitive to these inputs. For that reason, most of us use portfolio theory to guide our intuition, but seldom do the math for our own portfolio. In any model you use, your weak link is the expected return and covariance. More sophisticated models don't usually help produce a more reasonable result. For that reason, your original strategy (80-20) sounds pretty good to me. Not sure why you are not diversifying outside of equities, but I suppose you have your reasons.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01ca7a270f24ca65876327fe39ebc516", "text": "\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04fc25149b5028e4a34d26e562cedb73", "text": "\"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "740de5afea45123d65bdc09bc1208f1b", "text": "\"Yes, the \"\"based on\"\" claim appears to be true – but the Nobel laureate did not personally design that specific investment portfolio ;-) It looks like the Gone Fishin' Portfolio is made up of a selection of low-fee stock and bond index funds, diversified by geography and market-capitalization, and regularly rebalanced. Excerpt from another article, dated 2003: The Gone Fishin’ Portfolio [circa 2003] Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) – 15% Vanguard Small-Cap Index (NAESX) – 15% Vanguard European Stock Index (VEURX) – 10% Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX) – 10% Vanguard Emerging Markets Index (VEIEX) – 10% Vanguard Short-term Bond Index (VFSTX) – 10% Vanguard High-Yield Corporates Fund (VWEHX) – 10% Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund (VIPSX) – 10% Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX) – 5% Vanguard Precious Metals Fund (VGPMX) – 5% That does appear to me to be an example of a portfolio based on Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), \"\"which tries to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk\"\" (per Wikipedia). MPT was introduced by Harry Markowitz, who did go on to share the 1990 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. (Note: That is the economics equivalent of the original Nobel Prize.) You'll find more information at NobelPrize.org - The Prize in Economics 1990 - Press Release. Finally, for what it's worth, it isn't rocket science to build a similar portfolio. While I don't want to knock the Gone Fishin' Portfolio (I like most of its parts), there are many similar portfolios out there based on the same concepts. For instance, I'm reminded of a similar (though simpler) portfolio called the Couch Potato Portfolio, made popular by MoneySense magazine up here in Canada. p.s. This other question about asset allocation is related and informative.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5425400aa00739f218859eaffbd248", "text": "\"The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis. That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change. However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket. So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way. This means the demand for each stock is the same. No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves. The same for the high performer. The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles. Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the \"\"worst-case scenario\"\" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt. You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue. One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets. The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is. There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics. If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it. Some might buy it. It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds. They have a vested interest in attacking passive management.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ff6f273e82d001cb5990f389e723ced", "text": "\"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of \"\"assuming risk\"\" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a \"\"make free money\"\" answer. Okay. Here's your \"\"how to make free money\"\" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: \"\"when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6", "text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ae0bc20cdc126b60553272d13fc94a", "text": "\"In economics, there is a notion called the Sunk Cost Fallacy. In a nutshell, the sunk cost fallacy says that human beings tend to prefer to \"\"throw good money after bad\"\" because of a strong loss aversion. That, coupled with how we frame an issue, makes it very tempting to say, \"\"if I just add these funds, I'll recoup my loss plus...\"\" In reality, the best best is to ignore sunk costs. (I know, far easier said than done, but bear with me a second.) How much you've invested is really irrelevant. The only question worth asking is this: \"\"Would I invest this money in the asset today?\"\" Put it this way - any money you spend on \"\"rescuing\"\" this upside mortgage is an investment that trades ready funds for a little more equity. Knowing that the mortgage is $100K in excess of the value, why buy that asset? If you could do a HARP, different story - but as you say, you can't. As such, buying into that investment is not the best use of your funds. You are throwing good money after bad. Invest your money where it will earn the best rate of return - not where your heart lead you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3b46a3bcf094f4b1063d750d505eb04", "text": "From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "379fd084a7b1339e70292490902c9a36", "text": "I don't see a contrast. It's really hard to predict which mutual funds will do well in the future. Predicting that ones which have done well recently will continue to do well works slightly better than chance. The WSJ article and Morningstar agree on all the objective facts, they just spin them differently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfe7cdcbff23350b408f12110c75cf4c", "text": "Funds can't limit themselves to a small number of stocks without also limiting themselves to a small amount of total investment. I think 25 companies is too small to be practical from their point of view.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe9921a7843fe5fe58cfc9155f83a271", "text": "\"Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets. This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve. As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them. This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return. Sooner or later, \"\"the trade\"\" becomes \"\"crowded\"\". Eventually, large amounts of money try to \"\"exit the trade\"\" (into cash or the next discovered asset). And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44fa918fa226a914a48c0e624bff32a8", "text": "The commenters who referred you to the prisoner's dilemma are exactly correct, but I wanted to give a more detailed explanation because I find game theory quite interesting. The prisoner's dilemma is a classic scenario in game theory where even though it's in the best interests of two or more players to cooperate, they fail to do so. Wikipedia has a simple example using prisoners, but I'll use a simple example using Fidel and Charles, who are fund managers at Fidelity and Charles Schwab, respectively. To make the table shorter, I abbreviated a bit: INC = increase fees, KEEP=keep fees the same, DEC=decrease fees. Here is the dilemma itself, in the table that shows the resulting market shares if each fund manager follows the course of action in question. While this example isn't mathematically rigorous because I completely fabricated the numbers, it makes a good example. The most profitable course of action would be both fund managers agreeing to increase their fees, which would keep their market shares the same but increase their profits as they earn more fees. However, this won't happen for several reasons. Because economies of scale exist in the market for investment funds, it's reasonable to assume in a simple example that as funds grow larger, their costs decrease, so even though a fund manager decreases his fees (betraying the other players), this decrease won't be enough to reduce their profits. In fact, the increased market share resulting from such a decrease may well dominate the decreased fees and lead to higher profits. The prisoner's dilemma is highly applicable to markets such as these because they exist as oligopolies, i.e. markets where a relatively small number of established sellers possess considerable market power. If you actually wanted to model the market for donor-advised funds using game theory, you need to take a few more things into account. Obviously there are more than two firms. It's probably a valid assumption that the market is an oligopoly with significant economies of scale, but I haven't researched this extensively. There is more than one time period, so some form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is needed. The market for donor-advised funds is also complicated by the fact that these are philanthropic funds. This may introduce tax implications or the problem of goodwill and institutional opinion of these funds. Although both funds increasing their fees may increase their profits in theory, institutional investors may look on this as a pure profit-seeking and take their funds elsewhere. For example, they may choose to invest in smaller funds with higher fees but better reputations. While reputation is important for any company, it might make more of a difference when the fund/investment vehicle is philanthropic in nature. I am by no means an expert on game theory, so I'm sure there are other nuances to the situation that I'm unaware of.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bcf742236b389607116bcb989ce60fa", "text": "absolutely $SPY ETF is the way to go if your point of comparison is the S&P and you want to do low maintenance.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
aa2293b67cd33de5f913481d609fc3e6
How do banks lose money on foreclosures?
[ { "docid": "f4aa10b157076a2d41f8f8ec9de3d2c1", "text": "\"The \"\"just accounting\"\" is how money market works these days. Lets look at this simplified example: The bank creates an asset - loan in the amount of X, secured by a house worth 1.25*X (assuming 20% downpayment). The bank also creates a liability in the amount of X to its depositors, because the money lent was the money first deposited into the bank by someone else (or borrowed by the bank from the Federal Reserve(*), which is, again, a liability). That liability is not secured. Now the person defaults on the loan in the amount of X, but at that time the prices dropped, and the house is now worth 0.8*X. The bank forecloses, sells the house, recovers 80% of the loan, and removes the asset of the loan, creating an asset of cash in the value of 0.8*X. But the liability in the amount of X didn't go anywhere. Bank still has to repay the X amount of money back to its depositors/Feds. The difference? 20% of X in our scenario - that's the bank's loss. (*) Federal Reserve is the US equivalent of a central bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6de8275802733d88deb52209a02a4bd5", "text": "\"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't \"\"revenue\"\" until the interest is calculated for each month and \"\"accrues\"\" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured \"\"signature loan\"\" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider \"\"stores of value\"\" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the \"\"broken window\"\" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely \"\"distressed\"\" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called \"\"toxic assets\"\"; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a \"\"strategic default\"\"; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "32e935b4339ffb2917c8b86d2b58f554", "text": "\"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for \"\"gas leaks\"\" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the \"\"grave-robbers\"\" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores. This produces a flatter, \"\"offset\"\" price graph for discount retailers through the business cycle; they don't lose as early or as much as everyone else in a major downturn, and they turn it around sooner while everyone else may still be on the way down, but as everything gets better for everyone on the upswing it's less great for the discount guys, as they start losing customers and their dollars to competitors with better stuff, even as the ones they keep spend more. This doesn't generally manifest as a true negative correlation, but it can be a good hedge. The number one money-making investment in a tanking economy is gold. When things go down the crapper, everyone wants gold, so if you see the train wreck coming far enough in advance, you can make a big move to gold and really make some money off that investment. For instance, when the first whispers about ARM adjustments and mass defaults reached the public consciousness in mid-2005, gold bullion jumped from about $400 to over $700 in a nine-month period. It cooled off again in 06-07 but only to about $600/oz, and then in late 07 it steadily climbed to peak at $1000/oz; even if you got in late, an investment of $1000 in July '07 in \"\"bulk\"\" gold would have netted you $650 in one year; that's a 65% APY. Then the economy hit bottom and a lot of investors ditched gold for investments they thought would pull back out of their holes quickly; For just a little while in '08 gold was down to $700 again. Then came all the government reports; unemployment not budging, home prices still declining, a lot of banks still hiding just how bad their position was. If you had seen that it was going to be bad, bad, bad, like a lot of now-billionaire hedge fund investors did, a $1000 investment in gold in July 05, and then cashing out at the tops of the peaks and buying back in at the major troughs, would be worth almost $4000 today. That's a 400% return over 7 years, or an annual average yield of 57%. There simply hasn't been anything like that in the last 7 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "690b591bb9ac43bf175f9ab597744115", "text": "Banks have huge amounts of foreclosure or pending foreclosure properties on their books that they haven't even listed for sale yet. The ratio is something like 6 to 1. The amount of inventory held on the books, but off the market is larger than the entire MLS market. In a competitive market, a smart bank would try to dump their property now before the other banks do. But instead, all the banks are holding their properties off the market and trickling them out at a slow rate. Collusion?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5d1e46007a73134f5a59e6f5781bd63", "text": "To supplement existing answers: the appraised value does not necessarily represent the net amount the bank could actually recover with a foreclosure. Let's look at it from the point of view of the bank. Suppose the property appraises at $200,000 and they do what you want: loan you $200,000 with the property as collateral. Now suppose a short time later, you quit paying the mortgage and they have to foreclose. Can the bank get their $200,000 back? An appraisal is only an estimate; nobody can predict perfectly how much a property will sell for. Maybe the appraiser missed something significant, and the property will only fetch $180,000. Even if the appraisal was accurate when it was made, property values may have dropped in the meantime. Maybe a sudden economic crisis is driving real estate prices down across the board. Maybe interest rates have spiked. Maybe the county has changed the zoning regulations to locate a toxic waste dump next door to the property. In any of these cases, the property may again fetch well under $200,000. Maybe the condition of the property has changed. Perhaps you trashed the place and it will take $30,000 to clean it up. (People have a tendency to do things like that when they get foreclosed.) If the bank wants to get full market value for the property, they will incur the usual costs of selling a property: paying a real estate agent's commission, painting, renting furniture to stage the property, and so on. This will eat into the net amount they actually get from the sale. It may take some time (perhaps months) for a property to sell at its full market value. During this time, the bank is out $200,000. That's money they would rather be loaning out at interest to someone else, so this represents lost income. Foreclosing a mortgage is a fairly complicated procedure. The bank has to pay its staff, including lawyers, for a significant number of hours to get the foreclosure done. There will be court filing fees and so on. If you refuse to leave, they may have to get the sheriff to evict you; that has a fee as well. If you fight the foreclosure, that racks up even more legal fees. This too eats into the net proceeds from the sale. So if the bank loans you the full $200,000, they stand a pretty significant risk of not getting all of it back, after expenses. You can understand that risk may not be worth the interest they would get from you on the extra $40,000. On the other hand, if they loan you only 80% of the property's appraised value ($160,000), they effectively shift that risk onto you. Should you default on the loan, and they foreclose, all they have to do is sell the property for $160,000 or a little bit more. That shouldn't be too hard, even if it is not freshly painted or a bit trashed. They probably don't need to hire a real estate agent: just hold a quick auction, maybe first calling up a few investors who might be interested in flipping it. If it happens to sell for more than the outstanding principal of the loan, plus the bank's costs, then they will pay you the difference; but they have no incentive to make that happen, and every incentive to just get it sold quick. So any difference between the property's true value and the actual sale price now represents a loss to you first, not to the bank. So you can see why the bank would rather not loan you the full value of the property. 80% is a somewhat arbitrary figure but it cuts their risk by a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cb916d0e43a50f25c6741433bb8358f", "text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1b7910c61fff560df444892317f451c", "text": "\"If banks really controlled house prices, then why do banks now own a shitload of houses that are no longer being paid for? So many that they can't sell them now because that would drive prices down even more, and they'd lose more. Sigh... go ahead and continue to blame \"\"them\"\" for everything. It's easier that way, because then you will never have to take responsibility for any of your mistakes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9976b46a505265ecde11fd4c7e9925a7", "text": "Foreclosure is at a high level the bank declaring that the debtor cannot pay their promissory note (their debt). This is shortly followed by default, which is the removal of debtors rights to the property. After the debtor has defaulted, he either chooses to voluntarily remove himself and his belongings from the property, or is forcibly evicted. In the US eviction is carried out by local law enforcement, such as the sheriff's office. The bank is now the sole owner of the property, and proceeds to sell it, in an attempt to recoup their investment. If the bank cannot recoup their investment by selling the house, the rest may be converted to unsecured debt against the debtor. If the bank chooses to forgive the remaining debt, the debtor may have a tax liability for cancellation of debt. Also the debtor may also be liable for any appreciation the house did before it was sold, but this likely to be nontaxable if the house in question is the debtor's primary residence. They also send the credit bureaus the notice of foreclosure, which is how your credit score is hurt. Private Mortgage Insurance or Lenders Mortgage Insurance will pay the lender some amount back to cover their losses. See Also:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d46a7d2f95353b06f0e2dabc034064ac", "text": "\"the \"\"consumer relief\"\" only affects people who have mortgages. so people who lost everything don't have mortgages any more and are unaffected by this \"\"consumer relief\"\" the \"\"relief\"\" is not limited to individuals directly harmed by the bank. recipients are chosen by the bank, for the bank's maximum profit extraction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "464c9b92963363ecd1df7012855d3cf6", "text": "If the homeowner knows the situation is hopeless, and the end result will be the loss of the home, jumping to the end result can be helpful. It is quicker, they don't spend as much time fighting a losing battle. Deed in Lieu of foreclosure is not so great for the borrower if the bank goes after them for the rest of the money owed. There can also be tax implications if the debt is forgiven. Though these issues also exist when the drawn out foreclosure option is done. For the bank. The longer the process the more the house deteriorates. The borrower may stop maintenance and may even vandalize the house. Getting their lock on the door quickly is important to them. They protect it, clean it, and prep it for sale right away. They also save on lawyer fees. They know that the moment they start the foreclosure process all money from the borrower stops, this can save thousands in carrying costs. One issue will be how the accounting losses will be divided among the servicing company, and the investors. If the servicing company will make more money from the longer process they may not push for the quick settlement. If the opposite is true, they will be quickly on board. For the new buyer, the issue with either foreclosure is that the longer process can result in greater hidden and visible damage. The heat pump may work, but the disgruntled homeowner stopped changing the filters the last six months. They may have also removed and damaged things on the way out. Other than that I don't see a big difference. Because the bank had lower costs involved in the foreclosure they might settle for a lower purchase price, but that might be hard to know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c6a870d896ba0f0ddafe2dbe1357b2f", "text": "Banks don't want to manage property. They despise the fact that they have all of these foreclosures that they can't sell. They just want to loan you the money at X% and collect the fees and interest. The value of a reverse mortgage to the lender is that it's a collateralized loan against a property. When the owner exits the property, it's attached to the property and must be paid back before the property is sold. They carefully consider the age of the recipient, equity in the property, etc. when they decide how much to pay the owner so that the chances of the loan going underwater are minimized.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "033cc75052b075d066d1a2b1420dfe42", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b20dde4b533b9447acdebeffe1611f43", "text": "According to the article this is not actually a fine, they are just buying back the mortgages they sold in the first place. One has to wonder if they are buying them back at the same price that they sold them or if it's a discount. E.g. They sold you a lemon for $1000, offer to buy it back for $10? Other questions: If they are buying them back then are they now going to start foreclosing like criminals like BoA did?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18a79eb08dc3d53a6c2c3ed6f6d25b4b", "text": "\"Banks make less profit when \"\"long\"\" rates are low compared to \"\"short\"\" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) \"\"short term\"\" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3c9107673fd5927e3e38d0ef07c60d", "text": "It was both. CDOs also contributed. Unfortunately, when the bankers kept packing up their loans they lost track of the risk as did the financial institutions offering instruments to deleverage that risk. So when the subprime borrowers began to fail the institutions started getting hit with risk that they hadn't prepared for. Flippers and home owners who used their homes as ATMs then saw their home values crash and it all fell apart. We are seeing some of this again with owners getting more HELOCs but the real concern is with car loans, credit card and student loan debt.", "title": "" }, { "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": "b19c0e2592607bf404db322381f746c5", "text": "I agree with the others that the ROTH is probably better. See this list of benefit/cost comparison (as opposed to rule differences)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_401%28k%29_and_IRA_accounts&oldid=582368417", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
440423c928bf9f74eb3b666a02d9d6b2
Is diversification better
[ { "docid": "db73a1b5b50cf731eb237e3122d18353", "text": "\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "e2a054405fb83d902a7776b9cb3ec8a2", "text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "d27453d9a8051fc9c96ed1dfb6f78f07", "text": "Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210", "text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77b663645ab63f4452a4e793fee32034", "text": "The question is not whether CFA charterholders are better investment managers but rather whether starting (or having completed) your CFA will land you a better job. It's been my experience that it does, which is why so many people pursue it", "title": "" }, { "docid": "846d367583fbcb6cd2fabd6e2d9345f9", "text": "\"I recommend you take a look at this lecture (really, the whole series is enlightening), from Swenson. He identifies 3 sources of returns: diversification, timing and selection. He appears to discard timing and selection as impossible. A student kinda calls him out on this. Diversification reduces risk, not increase returns. It turns out they did time the market, by shorting .com's before the bubble, and real estate just before the downturn. In 1990, Yale started a \"\"Absolute Return\"\" unit and allocated like 15 percent to it, mostly by selling US equities, that specializes in these sorts of hedging moves. As for why you might employ managers for specific areas, consider that the expense ratio Wall Street charges you or me still represent a very nice salary when applied to the billions in Yale's portfolio. So they hire internally to reduce expenses, and I'm sure they're kept busy. They also need people to sell off assets to maintain ratios, and figuring out which ones to sell might take specialized knowledge. Finally, in some areas, you functionally cannot invest without management. For example, Yale has a substantial allocation in private equity, and by definition that doesn't trade on the open market. The other thing you should consider is that for all its diversification, Yale lost 25 percent of their portfolio in 2009. For a technique that's supposed to reduce volatility, they seem to have a large range of returns over the past five years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5356ba20ab62d86c8a3508d557ea4cbb", "text": "Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30fe1f5527b4099b5136e2ba5d9789d9", "text": "\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "504c08e32f4e3ff825c97a72198693ce", "text": "\"It depends on what you're talking about. If this is for your retirement accounts, like IRAs, then ABSOLUTELY NOT! In your retirement accounts you should be broadly diversified - not just between stocks, but also other markets like bonds. Target retirement funds and solid conservative or moderate allocation funds are the best 'quick-and-dirty' recommendation for those accounts. Since it's for the long haul, you want to be managing risk, not chasing returns. Returns will happen over the 40 or so years they have to grow. Now, if you're talking about a taxable stock account, and you've gotten past PF questions like \"\"am I saving enough for retirement\"\", and \"\"have I paid off my debt\"\", then the question becomes a little more murky. First, yes, you should be diversified. The bulk of how a stock's movement will be in keeping with how its sector moves; so even a really great stock can get creamed if its sector is going down. Diversification between several sectors will help balance that. However, you will have some advantage in this sector. Knowing which products are good, which products everybody in the industry is excited about, is a huge advantage over other investors. It'll help you pick the ones that go up more when the sector goes up, and down less when the sector goes down. That, over time and investments, really adds up. Just remember that a good company and a good stock investment are not the same thing. A great company can have a sky-high valuation -- and if you buy it at that price, you can sit there and watch your investment sink even as the company is growing and doing great things. Have patience, know which companies are good and which are bad, and wait for the price to come to you. One final note: it also depends on what spot you are in. If you're a young guy looking looking to invest his first few thousand in the market, then go for it. On the other hand, if you're older, and we're talking about a couple hundred grand you've got saved up, then it's a whole different ball of wax. It that spot, you're back to managing risk, and need to build a solid portfolio, at a measured pace.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1b1556891c640ff506cac3ad191e843", "text": "Investopedia has a nice article on this here The Key benefit looks like better returns with lower capital. The disadvantage is few brokers offering that can be trusted. Potentially lower return due to margins / spreads. Higher leverage and can become an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eddf10b9b6dae95cbbd0441684ab2b0a", "text": "Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "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": "d5bdbdb32837ac6a5c8af9408ecf14be", "text": "Diversifying your portfolio between asset A and asset B only reduces the portfolio risk if asset A and asset B are not correlated. If they have either a low correlation or a negative correlation to each other, then you benefit from combining them in a portfolio in terms of risk reduction. The standard deviation of returns will be lower in a portfolio of low or uncorrelated assets. If on the other hand you combine two correlated assets into a portfolio you are doubling down on the same assumption, which means you are not reducing your risk. You are also wasting capital because now you have allocated capital to 2 separate trades / investments yet they have shown a high tendency of moving together. Here is an article that discusses this further: Why Diversify your Stock Portfolio", "title": "" }, { "docid": "934ef0bc0a19ea24509fa1f5c7af0b94", "text": "In my original question, I was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.", "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": "6f5601bc847b9b759754505aebe97c44", "text": "Unfortunately I believe there is not a good answer to this because it's not a well posed problem. It sounds like you are looking for a theoretically sound criteria to decide whether to sell or hold. Such a criteria would take the form of calculating the cost of continuing to hold a stock and comparing it to the transactions cost of replacing it in your portfolio. However, your criteria for stock selection doesn't take this form. You appear to have some ad hoc rules defining whether you want the stock in your portfolio that provide no way to calculate a cost of having something in your portfolio you don't want or failing to have something you do want. Criteria for optimally rebalancing a portfolio can't really be more quantitative than the rules that define the portfolio.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
c441e93b1a26ee7fb216353c4bb3f337
New car cash vs finance
[ { "docid": "5493c7944b022ecf3075500fc2deeafc", "text": "Yes, maybe. Sometimes the mother company (that makes the car) covers a bit of the loss that comes from the super-offer loan, so the dealer loses a bit less. But generally, you are right. you should be able to talk them into some rebate that gets you around the given number, depending on how good you are a negotiator (and how urgently they need to sell a car)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcd026c79da30d4424b9df38978406a4", "text": "\"The question is about the dealer, right? The dealer isn't providing this financing to you, Alfa is, and they're paying the dealer that same \"\"On the Road\"\" price when you finance the purchase. So the dealer gets the same amount either way. The financing, through Alfa, means your payments go to Alfa. And they're willing to give you 3,000 towards purchase of the car at the dealer in order to motivate those who can afford payments but not full cash for the car. They end up selling more cars this way, keeping the factories busy and employees and stockholders happy along the way. At least, that's how it's supposed to work out.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "b31d9b98a4891e6facb0202448d55049", "text": "\"New car loans, used car loans, and refinances have different rates because they have different risks associated with them, different levels of ability to recoup losses if there is a default, and different customer profiles. (I'm assuming third party lender for all of these questions, not financing the dealer arranges, as that has other considerations built into it.) A new car loan is both safer to some extent (as the car is a \"\"known\"\" risk, having no risk of damage/etc. prior to purchase), but also harder to recoup losses (because new cars immediately devalue significantly, while used cars keep more of their value). Thus the APRs are a little different; in general for the same amount a new car will be a bit lower APR, but of course used car loans are typically lower amounts. Refinance is also different; customer profile wise, the customer who is refinancing in these times is likely someone who is a higher risk (as why are they asking for a loan when they're mostly paid off their car?). Otherwise it's fairly similar to a used car, though probably a bit newer than the average used car.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55bcedf9148ed62eafa72d0c3547db05", "text": "\"The mix how how you present this feels contradictory. You would pull a 'major' portion from the emergency fund (EF), but at the same time, you'll replace it in a month. The first bit scares me, this is not the purpose of that fund, and the issue is the aspect of money that's psychological. Money is a habit, if you justify this use of the EF now, it gets progressively easier for this purchase or that, and the fund loses its intended purpose. If the second half is accurate, that your income would replace that money in a month, i'd say the fund wasn't fully funded to its proper level, 6-9 months of all expenses to get you though issues as bad as a job loss. The great thing I see in your question is what's missing. You're not looking to buy a car with a loan. That puts you in a good situation, and should push those answering to cut you some slack on the one month \"\"bridge loan\"\" from your own savings. Edit - OP add 2 key points, His EF is 3 years expenses (wow, kudos to him!), but he's living like a student (i.e. with parents, which keeps his costs low). If this latter observation seems judgmental, I'll re-edit. The finances of everyone would be far better off if we adopted multigenerational living. The young could save as Fahad is doing, and when parents retire, they can know they are cared for. In the US, I'd say \"\"when you move out, your expenses will go up drastically,\"\" but in this case, that may not happen, or not soon. This is my observation the world is a big place and our answers need to fit the OP's situation, not assume our own standards apply to all. Buy the better car. You saved. You earned it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ef7667232ab7ff56a77be06213e42c5", "text": "\"Yes, he can retract the offer - it was a cash-only offer, and if you're financing, it's no longer \"\"cash\"\". Unless, of course, you get the financing through your local bank / credit union, and they hand you a check (like on a personal loan). Then it's still cash. However, the salesman can still retract the offer unless it's in writing because you haven't signed anything yet. The price of financing will always be higher because the dealer doesn't get all their money today. Also, if you finance, you are not paying just the cost of the vehicle, you are paying interest, so your final cost will be higher (unless you were one of the lucky souls who got 0% financing atop employee pricing, and therefore are actually saving money by having a payment).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b90152e12b9beda4523a34625545dbca", "text": "\"Your son is in the right. But he broke the \"\"unwritten\"\" rules, which is why the car dealer is upset. Basically, cars are sold in the United States at a breakeven price. The car company makes ALL its money on the financing. If everyone bought \"\"all cash,\"\" the car companies would not be profitable. No one expected anyone, least of all your son, a \"\"young person,\"\" to pay \"\"all cash.\"\" When he did, they lost all the profit on the deal. On the other hand, they signed a contract, your son met all the FORMAL requirements, and if there was an \"\"understanding\"\" (an assumption, actually), that the car was supposed to be financed, your son was not part of it. Good for him. And if necessary, you should be prepared to back him up on court.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "230bf99815c0f1b4b3d8aea5c08f2c0f", "text": "The car dealership doesn't care where you get the cash; they care about it becoming their money immediately and with no risk or complications. Any loan or other arrangements you make to raise the cash is Your Problem, not theirs, unless you arrange the loan through them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "833192fa2624bd4fca23f6210fe60398", "text": "It is almost never going to be more economical to buy a new car versus repairing your current car. If you want a new car, that is justification enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c42f580bbe721965a6f98e30226dc44", "text": "The other answers have offered some great advice, but here is an alternative that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm assuming that you have an adequately-sized emergency fund in savings, and that your cars are your only non-mortgage debt. Since you still have car debt, you probably don't have anything saved for buying a new car when your current cars are at the end-of-life. Consider paying off your car loans early, then begin saving for your next car. Having cash in the bank for a car is very freeing, and it changes your mindset when it comes time to purchase a car, as it is easy to waste a lot of money on something that depreciates rapidly when you aren't paying for it immediately. This approach might be counterintuitive if your car loan interest rate is less than your mortgage rate, but you will probably need another car before you need another house, and paying cash for a car is worth doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d799c3133fcb24c4d751bc73e760e3d", "text": "\"Lachlan has $600 cash and a car worth $500. That's $1,100. The new car is priced at $21,800. Lachlan needs a loan for $20,700. However, the finance company insists that the buyer must pay a 10% deposit, which is $2,180. Lachlan only has $1,100, so no loan. The car dealer wants to make a sale, so suggests some tricks. The car dealer could buy Lachlan's old banger for $1,500 instead of $500, and sell the new car for $22,800 instead of $21,800. Doesn't make a difference to the dealer, he gets the same amount of cash. Now Lachlan has $600 cash and $1,500 for his car or $2,100 in total. He needs 10% of $22,800 as deposit which is $2,280. That's not quite there but you see how the principle works. Lachlan is about $200 short. So the dealer adds $1,200 to both car prices. Lachlan has $600 cash and a car \"\"worth\"\" $1,700, total $2,300. The new car is sold for $23,000 requiring a $2,300 deposit which works out exactly. How could we have found the right amount without guessing? Lachlan had $1,100. The new car costs $21,800. The dealer increases both prices by x dollars. Lachlan has now $1,100 + x deposit. The car now costs $21,800 + x. The deposit should be 10%, so $1,100 + x = 10% of ($21,800 + x) = $2,180 + 0.1 x. $1,100 + x = $2,180 + 0.1 x : Subtract $1,100 x = $1,080 + 0.1 x : Subtract 0.1 x 0.9 x = $1,080 : Divide by 0.9 x = $1,080 / 0.9 = $1,200 The dealer inflates the cost of the new car and the value of the old car by $1,200. Now that's the theory. In practice I don't know how the finance company feels about this, and if they would be happy if they found out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11692d59ac54be45ba7425bb06463446", "text": "The only reason to lend the money in this scenario is cashflow. But considering you buy a $15000 car, your lifestyle is not super luxurious, so $15000 spare cash is enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d280f9654cc7e6f9132494b19bc1d4f", "text": "Not long after college in my new job I bought a used car with payments, I have never done that since. I just don't like having a car payment. I have bought every car since then with cash. You should never borrow money to buy a car There are several things that come into play when buying a car. When you are shopping with cash you tend to be more conservative with your purchases look at this Study on Credit card purchases. A Dunn & Bradstreet study found that people spend 12-18% more when using credit cards than when using cash. And McDonald's found that the average transaction rose from $4.50 to $7.00 when customers used plastic instead of cash. I would bet you if you had $27,000 dollars cash in your hand you wouldn't buy that car. You'd find a better deal, and or a cheaper car. When you finance it, it just doesn't seem to hurt as bad. Even though it's worse because now you are paying interest. A new car is just insanity unless you have a high net worth, at least seven figures. Your $27,000 car in 5 years will be worth about $6500. That's like striking a match to $340 dollars a month, you can't afford to lose that much money. Pay Cash If you lose your job, get hurt, or any number of things that can cost you money or reduce your income, it's no problem with a paid for car. They don't repo paid for cars. You have so much more flexibility when you don't have payments. You mention you have 10k in cash, and a $2000 a month positive cash flow. I would find a deal on a 8000 - 9000 car I would not buy from a dealer*. Sell the car you have put that money with the positive cash flow and every other dime you can get at your student loans and any other debt you have, keep renting cheap keep the college lifestyle (broke) until you are completely out of debt. Then I would save for a house. Finally I would read this Dave Ramsey book, if I would have read this at your age, I would literally be a millionaire by now, I'm 37. *Don't buy from a dealer Find a private sale car that you can get a deal on, pay less than Kelly Blue Book. Pay a little money $50 - 75 to have an automotive technician to check it out for you and get a car fax, to make sure there are no major problems. I have worked in the automotive industry for 20 + years and you rarely get a good deal from a dealer. “Everything popular is wrong.” Oscar Wilde", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a4e4589e77150edb6090a7c725d0b86", "text": "I am going to give advice that is slightly differently based on my own experiences. First, regarding the financing, I have found that the dealers do in fact have access to the best interest rates, but only after negotiating with a better financing offer from a bank. When I bought my current car, the dealer was offering somewhere around 3.3%, which I knew was way above the current industry standard and I knew I had good credit. So, like I did with my previous car and my wife's car, I went to local and national banks, came back with deals around 2.5 or 2.6%. When I told the dealer, they were able to offer 2.19%. So it's ok to go with the dealer's financing, just never take them at face value. Whatever they offer you and no matter how much they insist it's the best deal, never believe it! They can do better! With my first car, I had little credit history, similar to your situation, and interest rates were much higher then, like 6 - 8%. The dealer offered me 10%. I almost walked out the door laughing. I went to my own bank and they offered me 8%, which was still high, but better than 10%. Suddenly, the dealer could do 7.5% with a 0.25% discount if I auto-pay through my checking account. Down-payment wise, there is nothing wrong with a 35% down payment. When I purchased my current car, I put 50% down. All else being equal, the more cash down, the better off you'll be. The only issue is to weigh that down payment and interest rate against the cost of other debts you may have. If you have a 7% student loan and the car loan is only 3%, you're better off paying the minimum on the car and using your cash to pay down your student loan. Unless your student loan balance is significantly more than the 8k you need to finance (like a 20k or 30k loan). Also remember that a car is a depreciating asset. I pay off cars as fast as I can. They are terrible debt to have. A home can rise in value, offsetting a mortgage. Your education keeps you employed and employable and will certainly not make you dumber, so that is a win. But a car? You pay $15k for a car that will be worth $14k the next day and $10k a year from now. It's easy to get underwater with a car loan if the down payment is small, interest rate high, and the car loses value quickly. To make sure I answer your questions: Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car? If you can afford it and it will not interfere with repayment of much higher interest debts, then yes. A car loan is a major liability, so if you can minimize the debt, you'll be better off. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I am not a banker, loan officer, or dealer, so I cannot answer this with much credibility. But given today's market, 2.5 - 4% seems reasonable. Do you think I'll get approved? Probably, but only one way to find out!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac5e3eceb0f3f7efed7542521895e212", "text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83f722d2f398117aafd522e4bfb3384e", "text": "I think you are making this more complicated that it has to be. In the end you will end up with a car that you paid X, and is worth Y. Your numbers are a bit hard to follow. Hopefully I got this right. I am no accountant, this is how I would figure the deal: The payments made are irrelevant. The downpayment is irrelevant as it is still a reduction in net worth. Your current car has a asset value of <29,500>. That should make anyone pause a bit. In order to get into this new car you will have to finance the shortfall on the current car (29,500), the price of the vehicle (45,300), the immediate depreciation (say 7,000). In the end you will have a car worth 38K and owe 82K. So you will have a asset value of <44,000>. Obviously a much worse situation. To do this car deal it would cost the person 14,500 of net worth the day the deal was done. As time marched on, it would be more as the reduction in debt is unlikely to keep up with the depreciation. Additionally the new car purchase screen shows a payment of $609/month if you bought the car with zero down. Except you don't have zero down, you have -29,500 down. Making the car payment higher, I estamate 1005/month with 3.5%@84 months. So rather than having a hit to your cash flow of $567 for 69 more months, you would have a payment of about $1000 for 84 months if you could obtain the interest rate of 3.5%. Those are the two things I would focus on is the reduction in net worth and the cash flow liability. I understand you are trying to get a feel for things, but there are two things that make this very unrealistic. The first is financing. It is unlikely that financing could be obtained with this deal and if it could this would be considered a sub-prime loan. However, perhaps a relative could finance the deal. Secondly, there is no way even a moderately financially responsible spouse would approve this deal. That is provided there were not sigificant assets, like a few million. If that is the case why not just write a check?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbe3c32df23d6bab65850a0504a96d0d", "text": "Very generally speaking if you have a loan, in which something is used as collateral, the leader will likely require you to insure that collateral. In your case that would be a car. Yes certainly a lender will require you to insure the vehicle that they finance (Toyota or otherwise). Of course, if you purchase a vehicle for cash (which is advisable anyway), then the insurance option is somewhat yours. Some states may require that a certain amount of coverage is carried on a registered vehicle. However, you may be able to drop the collision, rental car, and other options from your policy saving you some money. So you buy a new car for cash ($25K or so) and store the thing. What happens if the car suffers damage during storage? Are you willing to save a few dollars to have the loss of an asset? You will have to insure the thing in some way and I bet if you buy the proper policy the amount save will be very minimal. Sure you could drop the road side assistance, rental car, and some other options, during your storage time but that probably will not amount to a lot of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf8e57c340cfe4475615371f4ab62bad", "text": "\"as a used dealer in subprime sales, finance has to be higher than cash because every finance deal has a lender that takes a percentage \"\"discount\"\" on every deal financed. if you notice a dealer is hesitant to give a price before knowing if cash or finance, because every bit of a cash deal's profit will be taken by a finance company in order to finance the deal and then there's no deal. you might be approved but if you're not willing to pay more for a finance deal, the deal isn't happening if I have $5000 in a car, you want to buy it for $6000 and the finance lender wants to take $1200 as a \"\"buy-fee\"\" leaving me $4800 in the end.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
0a1910ec63d3e673caed23af43e1877d
Google Finance gain value incorrect because of currency fluctuation
[ { "docid": "6626c4f142e3832bfc708cd93472796d", "text": "You can easily build a Google Sheet spreadsheet to track what you want as Sheet has a 'googlefinance()' function to look-up the same prices and data you can enter and track in a Google Finance portfolio, except you can use it in ways you want. For example, you can track your purchase price at a fixed exchange rate, track the current market value as the product of the stock's price times the floating exchange rate, and then record your realized profit and loss using another fixed exchange rate. You don't have to record the rates either, as googlefinance() func is able to lookup prices as of a particular date. You can access Google Sheet through a web browser or Android app.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "c83ab56176a53cc349d933f86728f74c", "text": "\"I use Google Finance too. The only thing I have problem with is dividend info which it wouldn't automatically add to my portfolio. At the same time, I think that's a lot to ask for a free web site tool. So when dividend comes, I manually \"\"deposit\"\" the dividend payment by updating the cash amount. If the dividend comes in share form, I do a BUY at price 0 for that particular stock. If you only have 5 stocks, this additional effort is not bad at all. I also use the Hong Kong version of it so perhaps there maybe an implementation difference across country versions. Hope this helps. CF\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "505ca7e221596c6b8fd0ab08c320d875", "text": "Your assumption that funds sold in GBP trade in GBP is incorrect. In general funds purchase their constituent stocks in the fund currency which may be different to the subscription currency. Where the subscription currency is different from the fund currency subscriptions are converted into the fund currency before the extra money is used to increase holdings. An ETF, on the other hand, does not take subscriptions directly but by creation (and redemption) of shares. The principle is the same however; monies received from creation of ETF shares are converted into the fund currency and then used to buy stock. This ensures that only one currency transaction is done. In your specific example the fund currency will be USD so your purchase of the shares (assuming there are no sellers and creation occurs) will be converted from GBP to USD and held in that currency in the fund. The fund then trades entirely in USD to avoid currency risk. When you want to sell your exposure (supposing redemption occurs) enough holdings required to redeem your money are sold to get cash in USD and then converted to GBP before paying you. This means that trading activity where there is no need to convert to GBP (or any other currency) does not incur currency conversion costs. In practice funds will always have some cash (or cash equivalents) on hand to pay out redemptions and will have an idea of the number and size of redemptions each calendar period so will use futures and swaps to mitigate FX risk. Where the same firm has two funds traded in different currencies with the same objectives it is likely that one is a wrapper for the other such that one simply converts the currency and buys the other currency denominated ETF. As these are exchange traded funds with a price in GBP the amount you pay for the ETF or gain on selling it is the price given and you will not have to consider currency exchange as that should be done internally as explained above. However, there can be a (temporary) arbitrage opportunity if the price in GBP does not reflect the price in USD and the exchange rate put together.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9f08fc15393c1e8664baf7badbf7311", "text": "It looks like GOOG did not have a pre-market trade until 7:14 am ET, so Google Finance was still reporting the last trade it had, which was in the after-hours session yesterday. FB, on the other hand, was trading like crazy after-hours yesterday and pre-market today as it had an earnings report yesterday.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0f9c638a7c7fec5710781b49a98dfc8", "text": "The math is wrong. $16m grows to $72b over 44 years at 21% return (exact return is (72000/16)^(1/44) - 1 = 0.21067). At one percentage point lower return, i.e. 20%, $16m grows to $50b (16m x 1.21^44 = 49.985b). In that case you would have paid about 30 percent of your gain in fees. Still a lot, but not severe. Even the calculation of percent fees is wrong in the article!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f399907f2221e4bdc9aefb8c11cf52c", "text": "This is from Google Finance right now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "125865bceb315212e78e50f6a3ccd6f5", "text": "The cause of incomplete/inaccurate financial data's appearing on free sites is that it is both complicated and expensive to obtain and parse these data. Even within a single country, different pieces of financial data are handled by different authorities. In the US, for example, there is one generally recognized authority for stock prices and volumes (CQS), but a completely different authority for corporate earnings data (SEC). For futures and options data the only authority is each individual exchange. Each of these sources might have a vastly different interface to their data; some may have websites, others may have FTPs, others may have TCP datastreams to which you must subscribe, etc. Now throw in the rest of the world and all their exchanges and regulatory agencies, and you can see how it's a difficult job to gather all this information, parse it on a daily (or more frequent) basis, and check it all for errors. There are some companies (e.g. Bloomberg) whose entire business model is to do the above. They spend tens of millions of dollars per year to support the infrastructure and manpower required to keep such a complex system working, and they charge their consumers a pretty penny in return. Do Google/Yahoo pay for Bloomberg data access just to display information that we then consume for free? Maybe. Maybe they pay for some less expensive reduced data set. Or a data set that is less rigorously checked for errors. Even if they pay for the best data available, there's no guarantee that a company's last earnings report didn't have a glitch in it, or that Bloomberg's latest download from the Canadian Agency for Corporate Dividends and Moose Census-Taking didn't get cut off in the middle, or that the folks at Yahoo built a robust system that can handle a particular file's not arriving on time. Bloomberg has dozens or even hundreds of employees focused on just this one task; Yahoo probably has 5. Moral: If you really need the best available data you must go to the source(s), or you must pay a provider to whom you can then complain when something is wrong. With free data you get what you pay for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "593f6298656a2b96117729003a4e30dd", "text": "You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6cf13ea4d096712e382bab3746657bf", "text": "\"BestInvest is a UK site looking at that URL, base on the \"\"co.uk\"\" ending. Yahoo! Finance that you use is a US-based site unless you add something else to the URL. UK & Ireland Yahoo! Finance is different from where you were as there is something to be said for where are you looking. If I was looking for a quarter dollar there are Canadian and American coins that meet this so there is something to be said for a higher level of categorization being done. \"\"EUN.L\"\" would likely denote the \"\"London\"\" exchange as tickers are exchange-specific you do realize, right?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e23c82ab6bb3ab7a9a80b14ade2e0cd", "text": "There's a concept called interest rate parity, which sort of says that you cannot profit on the difference in interest rates. This difference accounts for the predicted movement in exchange rates as well, along with the stability of the currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9657c607586b37a6adb1bcd2413064", "text": "Returns reported by mutual funds to shareholders, google, etc. are computed after all the funds' costs, including Therefore the returns you see on google finance are the returns you would actually have gotten.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53", "text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c90ee4ba274fd55bd125b0bc0623285", "text": "On closer look, it appears that Google Finance relies on the last released 10-k statement (filing date 10/30/2013), but outstanding shares as of last 10-Q statement. Using these forms, you get ($37,037M / 5.989B ) = $6.18 EPS. I think this is good to note, as you can manually calculate a more up to date EPS value than what the majority of investors out there are relying on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93ed9100864a8c4146441b8c7bc0dab5", "text": "Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c91dbcb174171eab32c85abaddec8f3", "text": "\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
2269223da36e7e05ece3a0214704f181
Finance car with or with out a balloon payment
[ { "docid": "29c366b66bc9ac78b881ee6be8d430e3", "text": "That interest rate (13%) is steep, and the balloon payment will have him paying more interest longer. Investing the difference is a risky proposition because past performance of an investment is no guarantee of future performance. Is taking that risk worth netting 2%? Not for me, but you must answer that last question for yourself. To your edit: How disruptive would losing the car and/or getting negative marks on your credit be? If you can quantify that in dollars then you have your answer.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "103910ac8dd3b76e41e68a79b1d5874f", "text": "My grandmother passed away earlier this year. When I got my car 3 years ago, I did not have good enough credit to do it on my own or have her as a co-signer. We had arranged so that my grandmother was buying the car and I was co-signing. A similar situation was happening and I went to my bank and took out a re-finance loan prior to her passing. I explained to them that my grandmother was sick and on her death bed. They never once requested a power of attorney or required her signature. I am now the sole owner of the vehicle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a453b102c970df29de645d3513f34325", "text": "\"Care to elaborate? It is my understanding that any asset can be rehypothecated at least in theory. By saying these car loans \"\"aren't\"\" rehypo'd, do you mean this is not the practice, or that there is a law/regulation prohibiting it?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "887b6da259f747c3ebaa6117d49b4758", "text": "Not sure if it is the same in the States as it is here in the UK (or possibly even depends on the lender) but if you have any amount outstanding on the loan then you wouldn't own the vehicle, the loan company would. This often offers extra protection if something goes wrong with the vehicle - a loan company talking to the manufacturer to get it resolved carries more weight than an individual. The laon company will have an army of lawyers (should it get that far) and a lot more resources to deal with anything, they may also throw in a courtesy car etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "beb3f083af599d46d40746bcc6f23dda", "text": "\"I think everything in your case is just simply missing one important rule of how credit works. Essentially, your MIL cannot get a loan. You can. You are making her a large loan that she cannot get for herself. That is all. That is the essence of what this deal is. It is not without interest - she makes a financial contribution toward your son, you get the deal in 2 years assuming she doesn't default (she will), etc. Imagine it this way: you are sitting in the dealership with the dealer and your MIL. She wants a loan to pay for the car. The dealership says, \"\"you are way not credit worthy.\"\" So your MIL says, \"\"why doesn't my son-in-law take out the loan instead?\"\" Now the dealership says, sure, that's fine. From the dealer's standpoint, every other part of your arrangement is irrelevant - boring, even. The only magic trick is in who takes the loan out, no other difference. You're letting your MIL pull a car out of her sleeve like a magician, and in taking the deal you're believing her. This sentence: I am pretty sure that the ex-MIL will not let me down (I've loaned her large sums of money before and she always promptly repaid). is everything. You're making a rather large bet that the things that can go wrong in two years - including any situation involving your wife's welfare - are rather miniscule. And furthermore, that the few times she's paid you back - that did NOT convince banks and dealer she is more creditworthy - justifies her good creditworthiness. Is the interest worth it? Do you really believe that your MIL needs to wring a car out of you before she would consider contributing to her grandson's well-being (which is, essentially, the interest)? But wait, it's NOT everything. Her daughter (my ex-wife) would drive it for 2 years and then turn the car over to our son. Even if your MIL is creditworthy, the woman you described as follows: Her daughter, though, is a loose cannon. Will be holding and returning the collateral in this deal. Things she can do include: So I'm arguing two points: Obviously my opinion on this is clear. I hope I did a decent job of explaining where the components of this deal (credit, interest, collateral) play out in the eyes of a dealer or bank, and get lost in the mechanics of the rules you worked out with your family.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f2d7cb8ce82aa73b1882a63e63724e8", "text": "\"Yea but they might feel swindled and that you pulled a fast one on them, and not be as willing to give you good deals in the future. Like, as a totally non mathematical example, they have a car for $50k. They lower the price to 40k with a financing that will bring total payment to 60k. Their break even on that car is let's say 45k. The financier cuts them a commission on expected profits, of maybe 7k? They made an expected 2k on the car. But if you pay it all off asap, they may lose that commission, be 5k in the hole on the sale, and pretty upset. Even more upset if they finance in house. So when you go back to buy another car they'll say \"\"fuck this guy, we need to recoup past lost profits, don't go below 4K above break even.\"\" I'm not really 100% on how financing workings when it comes to cars but from my background in sales this is the bar I would set for a customer that made me take a loss by doing business with them if they tried to come back in the future. This doesn't take into account how car dealerships don't own their inventory, finance all of their cars and actually ARE willing to take a loss on a car just to get it off the lot some times.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "927daf0565187ad69e532a058862b42f", "text": "The optimal down payment is 0% IF your interest rate is also 0%. As the interest rate increases, so does the likelihood of the better option being to pay for the car outright. Note that this is probably a binary choice. In other words, depending on the rate you will pay, you should either put 0% down, or 100% down. The interesting question is what formula should you use to determine which way to go? Obviously if you can invest at a higher return than the rate you pay on the car, you would still want to put 0% down. The same goes for inflation, and you can add these two numbers together. For example, if you estimate 2% inflation plus 1% guaranteed investment, then as long as the rate on your car is less than 3%, you would want to minimize the amount you put down. The key here is you must actually invest it. Other possible reasons to minimize the down payment would be if you have other loans with higher rates- then obviously use that money to pay down those loans before the car loan. All that being said, some dealers will give you cash back if you pay for the car outright. If you have this option, do the math and see where it lands. Most likely taking the cash back is going to be more attractive so you don't even have to hedge inflation at all. Tip: Make sure to negotiate the price of the car before you tell them how you are going to pay for it. (And during this process you can hint that you'll pay cash for it.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6bf0329cade75454187b0320816ddc2", "text": "\"One part of the equation that I don't think you are considering is the loss in value of the car. What will this 30K car be worth in 84 months or even 60 months? This is dependent upon condition, but probably in the neighborhood of $8 to $10K. If one is comfortable with that level of financial loss, I doubt they are concerned with the investment value of 27K over the loan of 30K @.9%. I also think it sets a bad precedent. Many, and I used to be among them, consider a car payment a necessary evil. Once you have one, it is a difficult habit to break. Psychologically you feel richer when you drive a paid for car. Will that advantage of positive thinking lead to higher earnings? Its possible. The old testament book of proverbs gives many sound words of advice. And you probably know this but it says: \"\"...the borrower is slave to the lender\"\". In my own experience, I feel there is a transformation that is beyond physical to being debt free.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "832fdc8c674902d98b80c697574456cb", "text": "The price inflation isn't a percentage, it's a fixed amount. If the dealer adds $R to the price of both the trade-in and the purchased car, then everyone ends up with the right amount of money in their pockets. So your formula should be: D + T + R = 0.1 * (P + R)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2514a39fecbdb5edb8a2ca787065cc4c", "text": "Since this is the reasoning: I don't want to bother with micropayments, and harassing her for monthly payments. You must do one the following: Provide the money to your mom as a loan (i.e.: with a note and interest) payable when the full repayment of the loan to the bank is done (i.e.: balloon note). The terms of the note should be that the money to be used as collateral for the secured loan from the bank. Provide the money to your mom directly. In this case you have to pay gift tax on $7K (above the 13K exemption limit). Since you want the money back - you'll probably want the option #1. Your interest rate should be above a certain level to avoid reclassifying it as a gift by the IRS (your tax adviser can help you with that). Your mom will pay interest to the bank on the secured loan, and to you on the collateral (unless you wave it, subject to gift tax, again - talk to the tax adviser). You will only need to harass your mom about the balloon payment in the end. This is not a tax or legal advice. Talk to your tax adviser and a legal counsel about the details and additional options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dba4f638e967cf689e1b735cc9daed10", "text": "No, it would not show up on the income statement as it isn't income. It would show up in the cash flow statement as a result of financing activities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e814218015e61c473d66135a4cfd495", "text": "I agree with the deposit part. But if you are buying a new car, the loan term should meet the warranty term. Assuming you know you won't exceed the mileage limits, it's a car with only maintainence costs and the repayment cost at that point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "393ee932bbcbbe5f9751ffa34a64af45", "text": "\"It sounds like you're basing your understanding of your options regarding financing (and even if you need a car) on what the car salesman told you. It's important to remember that a car salesman will do anything and say anything to get you to buy a car. Saying something as simple as, \"\"You have a low credit score, but we can still help you.\"\" can encourage someone who does not realize that the car salesman is not a financial advisor to make the purchase. In conclusion,\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0abf2d4619c289bdab3c1e7ba705521d", "text": "\"A repossessed automobile will have lost some value from sale price, but it's not valueless. They market \"\"title loans\"\" to people without good credit on this basis so its a reasonably well understood risk pool.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f31db5acfc76067558fb64fe71b7f964", "text": "I'd finance the car (for 60 or 48 months), but stash enough money in a separate account so to guarantee the ability to pay it off in case of job loss. The rationales would be: Note that I'd only do this if the loan rate were very low (under 2%).", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
a78150ca867589a2b5e15f3b3214fe29
Is there any online personal finance software without online banking?
[ { "docid": "67e6df622dd88179304c2e78cbeab65a", "text": "CashBase has a web app, an iPhone app and an Android app, all sync'ed up. It doesn't integrate with banks automatically, but you can import bank statements as CSV. Disclosure: Filip is CashBase's founder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "806551235283f9d9a95065c5b04a2cbc", "text": "neobudget.com is a website that does exactly what you are describing. It is set up for electronically using the envelope system of budgeting. Disclosure: neobudget was founded by a former coworker of mine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "535fe2de4b0d7b8130a5c2fd22865b52", "text": "MoneyStrands is a site very similar to Mint, but does not force you to link bank accounts. You can create manual accounts and use all features of the site without linking to banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e4b08d2324e9ae8352ba159dbe915f8", "text": "SavingsMap is a web-based personal finance forecasting tool that requires no bank account or personal information other than an email address. As founder of SavingsMap, our goal is to forecast future cash flows based on your current budget, while using strategies to minimize US tax obligations and taking into account expected major life events.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46075a828d1727de85ef25c10211b410", "text": "I don't think Xero Personal does. I have my bank account in there, but since there's no automatic feed for the bank I use I imported it manually. I entered the bank by hand, so I think you could use it without listing a bank account at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcf7b6129f6a8a9145f65dc426f9870e", "text": "PocketSmith is another tool you might like to consider. No personal banking details are required, but you can upload your transactions in a variety of formats. Pocketsmith is interesting because it really focus on your future cash flow, and the main feature of the interface is around having a calendar(s) where you easily enter one off or repetitive expenses/income. http://www.pocketsmith.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "322f5d10292e959303f15a52b5dd1380", "text": "Out Of The Dark OOTD is a budgeting and personal money management web app that does not require you to give out access to your bank accounts or even your personal identity. It's a great tool for people with no financial experience with features like Cash Put-Aside and the Credit Card Debt Terminator and it has tons of instant guides explaining how to use every feature. You can check it out at myootd.org.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "8695e8030ee3269d15f22929ed6fbf9f", "text": "I know of websites that do this, but I don't know of banks that do. Is there any reason you want to do this at a bank rather than use a service? My main concern with using a bank for this would be the risk of overdraft fees", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05b062c3dbfae8603e25530ca2902b85", "text": "Yodlee's Moneycenter is the system that powered Mint.com before Intuit bought them. It works great for managing accounts in a similar fashion to Mint. They have a development platform that might be worth checking out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f4dbe88221367fcb6ae3ac4fade687a", "text": "I haven't found a drop-in replacement for MS Money, but I've tried a few of the Mac desktop programs. I settled on Iggsoftware's iBank, which seems to do what I need it to do. It also appears to be able to import transactions from MS Money if you export your accounts as QIF files at the MS Money end, but I never tried it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93651496bbc8ad51ee18fb100f61dfbc", "text": "I used to use Quicken, but support for that has been suspended in the UK. I had started using Mvelopes, but support for that was suspended as well! What I use now is an IPhone app called IXpenseit to track my spending.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a41c9f182f2aa4a77e16a1f6c6a69eb4", "text": "USAA does - that's my bank. Wells Fargo tries to determine whether the online activity is a risk; if it is, they'll require an SMS code or phoned code be entered. You can get a fairly definitive list of online companies at twofactorauth.org.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5551e1d6c53d78ac4f021ce3d5c4c4b4", "text": "I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e24bf7a39a85a27540fd6df3267e7eb0", "text": "\"Excellent question. I'm not aware of one. I was going to say \"\"go visit some personal finance blogs\"\" but then I remembered that I write on one, and that I often get a commission if I talk about online accounts, so unless something is really bad I'm not going to post on it because I want to make money, not chase it away. This isn't to say that I'm biased by commissions, but among a bunch of online banks paying pretty much the same (crappy) interest rate and giving pretty much the same (often not crappy) service, I'm going to give air time to the ones that pay the best commissions. That, and some of the affiliate programs would kick me out if I trashed them on my blog. This also would taint any site, blog or not, that does not explicitly say that they do not have affiliate relationships with the banks they review. I suppose if you read enough blogs you can figure out the bad ones by their absence, but that takes a lot of time. Seems like you'd do all right by doing a \"\"--bank name-- sucks\"\" Google search to dig up the dirt. That, or call up / e-mail / post on their forum any questions you have about their services before sending them your money. If they're up front, they'll answer you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8293b2227b2cf8e7b7a54f44800b5ed7", "text": "often financial software is dire, with crappy interfaces and poorly integrated to the wider company. I have an ambition one day to create a modern human centred financial software that is focused on the task at hand rather than forcing the user to jump through unnecessary hoops. Also Excel should be banned for many reasons.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2762d545460a22c939b7c8db3bd238a", "text": "\"Uh, have you tried google docs? Start off simple. Other than that, for the moment I use GNUCash. Some day I might try to write my own, but for now it works well enough. I have a number of scheduled transactions in GNUCash, and it records them days in advance. You talk about \"\"I should have how much money\"\", but GNUCash offers a slightly better format: Future Minimum Balance. If you want to know whether you can spend money in an account without triggering a chain reaction, that's the number you want. Being web-based so that it can be accessed from any OS. GNUCash is cross platform, with Windows, OSX and Linux clients. It also supports mysql/postgres database backends, so while it's not \"\"Web based\"\", you can keep your data \"\"in the cloud\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f54884ae32eefec916c3d43e722d841", "text": "At one point you could log into your HSBC account from the command line, but gosh, I've never heard of a bank that has a command line interface!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b9356353617057df4141fe06695ce80", "text": "I use MoneyStrands.com to manage my spending. It's a lot like Mint, but provides support for more banks, and works with most Canadian financial institutions. I can't really compare them fairly though, since I didn't bother with Mint after learning that they don't care about Canadians. If your bank isn't supported by MoneyStrands, or you don't want to trust an online webiste with your account login, you can create accounts for manually uploaded files. It just means you have to log into your bank yourself, download the transactions as QFX, OFX, CSV or other supported formats, and then upload the files to the appropriate account in MoneyStrands. I love the expense tracking and reporting that MoneyStrands offers, but like Mint, their budgeting feature is seriously lacking. Fortunately I don't need to budget month-to-month, I just use it to see how much I spend on various categories, to help create annual budgets and decide how much I can invest or use for a vacation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a471c4c58c07ed7ca866cff9414c8695", "text": "There isn't one. I haven't been very happy with anything I've tried, commercial or open source. I've used Quicken for a while and been fairly happy with the user experience, but I hate the idea of their sunset policy (forced upgrades) and using proprietary format for the data files. Note that I wouldn't mind using proprietary and/or commercial software if it used a format that allowed me to easily migrate to another application. And no, QIF/OFX/CSV doesn't count. What I've found works well for me is to use Mint.com for pulling transactions from my accounts and categorizing them. I then export the transaction history as a CSV file and convert it to QIF/OFX using csv2ofx, and then import the resulting file into GNUCash. The hardest part is using categories (Mint.com) and accounts (GnuCash) properly. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than manually exporting transactions from each account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f11a80155394033607a1016edc314a65", "text": "As I mentioned in my comment, mint.com might work for you. The downsides are giving them access to all your accounts, and still having to manually enter transactions that are done in cash. If you are ok with those however, it can automate almost everything else for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7701032534ea45756ab7256d60fb80c", "text": "If liquidity and cost are your primary objectives, Vanguard is indeed a good bet. They are the walmart of finance and the absolute best at minimizing fees and other expenses. Your main portfolio holding should be VTI, the total stock market fund. Highly liquid and has the lowest fees out there at 0.05%. You can augment this with a world-minus-US fund if you want. No need to buy sector or specific geography funds when you can get the whole market for less. Add some bond funds and alternative investments (but not too much) if you want to be fully diversified.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbf944a4d58bf8b85e060ca338784b6b", "text": "Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
23ca519e9a02d792704a24d533c5b9a7
Personal finance web service with account syncing in Germany
[ { "docid": "5e7e75cacb7d4a8796673232198e2982", "text": "\"I don't think there is a law against it. For example comdirect offers multi banking so you can access your accounts from other banks through the comdirect website. My guess would be: Germans are very conservative when it comes to their money (preferring cash above cards, using \"\"safe\"\" low interest saving accounts instead of stocks) so there just might be no market for such a tool. There are desktop apps with bank syncing that offer different levels of personal finance management. Some I know are MoneyMoney, outbank, numbrs, GNUCash and StarMoney.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d4dda5733c64ae1e43a453e77a300b6", "text": "As much as I know StarMoney has also a web service for banking.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "9c7310340478610eea3f1d4b154baaf6", "text": "\"As far as I can tell there are no \"\"out-of-the-box\"\" solutions for this. Nor will Moneydance or GnuCash give you the full solution you are looking for. I imaging people don't write a well-known, open-source, tool that will do this for fear of the negative uses it could have, and the resulting liability. You can roll-you-own using the following obscure tools that approximate a solution: First download the bank's CSV information: http://baruch.ev-en.org/proj/gnucash.html That guy did it with a perl script that you can modify. Then convert the result to OFX for use elsewhere: http://allmybrain.com/2009/02/04/converting-financial-csv-data-to-ofx-or-qif-import-files/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cb596c3982679cb59da8ba7d152b20e", "text": "Proposed solutions 1 and 3 sound like extra work. Is a dual-file system something that you and your wife will be willing to maintain? Having separate files may better reflect your financial structure, but be sure that the expense of added time and overhead is worth it to you in the long run. You could track your own accounts, your wife's accounts, and your joint accounts in the same Money file (solution 2). Getting married can be a simple matter of adding the wife's accounts and recording transfers as money flows into joint accounts. This would make transfers between accounts easy to record and would afford easy reporting of overall income and spending. To maintain a degree of continuity for your own accounts, customize some reports to exclude your wife's accounts and joint accounts. A note about Microsoft Money I think Microsoft Money is fantastic and I have no plans to stop using it despite the fact that Microsoft killed the product line. All Money users should be made aware of the free Sunset version that requires no online activation. Also check out PocketSense, a collection of free Python scripts that can download transactions from some banks directly into Money. I use and highly recommend both.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "684d7001ce736907f3d1b01865d78eaf", "text": "Specifically I'm trying to understand this pargraph: &gt;Stripping the German mobile-phone unit of its cash and increasing its net debt before the IPO could help lower the unit’s average cost of capital, said Carlos Winzer, a senior vice president at Moody’s Investors Service. &gt;“Telefonica Deutschland had a very strong cash position and no debt, so this move will allow the German unit to have a more efficient balance sheet structure,” said Winzer, who has covered Telefonica for 20 years How does moving cash from the German unit to the Spanish Telefonica unit induce a more efficient balance sheet structure for the German unit? Appreciate any help!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55499b6ed28e12db2ea47757a12c865f", "text": "Just signed up to them recently myself. Still not sure if I want to delete my account now, or wait and see if they can get more western European documents on line. Just haven't had time to find out who this Primera is, and if I need to worry about them selling my data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05b062c3dbfae8603e25530ca2902b85", "text": "Yodlee's Moneycenter is the system that powered Mint.com before Intuit bought them. It works great for managing accounts in a similar fashion to Mint. They have a development platform that might be worth checking out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bebaa6b3cce1a7612b581d6cba1a3810", "text": "MoneyDashboard or XeroPersonal are similar sites to Mint.com MoneyDashboard is planning on releasing an Android App XeroPersonal is also in development of an Android App For more details about the differences between the two apps, see this Web App question", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94e4d5ca28ad25d8016392b2891ba804", "text": "\"As many before me said but will say again for the sake of completeness of an answer: First off provision to have an emergency fund of 6 months living expenses to cover loss of employment, unforeseen medical issues etc. When that is done you re free to start investing. Do remember that putting all your eggs in one basket enable risks, so diversify your portfolio and diversify even within each investment vehicle. Stocks: I would personally stay away from stocks as it's for the most part a bear market right now (and I assume you re not interested day-trading to make any short term return) and most importantly you dont mention any trading experience which means you can get shafted. Mutual Funds: Long story short most of these work; mainly for the benefit for their management and people selling them. Bonds Instead, I would go for corporate bonds where you essentially buy the seller(aka the issuing company) and unlike gambling on stocks of the same company, you dont rely on speculation and stock gains to make a profit. As long as the company is standing when the bond matures you get your payment. This allows you to invest with less effort spent on a daily basis to monitor your investments and much better returns(especially if you find opportunities where you can buy bonds from structurally sound companies that have for reasons you deem irrelevant, purchase prices in the secondary market for cents in the dollar) than your other long term \"\"stable options\"\" like German issued bonds or saving accounts that are low in general and more so like in the current situation for German banks. Cryptocurrency I would also look into cryptocurrency for the long term as that seems to be past its childhood diseases and its also a good period of time to invest in as even the blue chips of that market are down party due to correction from all time highs and partly due to speculation. As Im more knowledgeable on this than German-locale bonds, a few coins I suggest you look into and decide for yourself would be the obvious ETH & BTC, then a slew of newer ones including but not limited to OmiseGO, Tenx(Pay), Augur and IOTA. Beware though, make sure to understand the basics of security and good practices on this field, as there's no central bank in this sector and if you leave funds in an exchange or your wallet's private key is compromised the money are as good as gone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82b9b92a9cd236b37a2eb01f8a3d5dfb", "text": "The best way to answer this question is to try. GnuCash is free, so setting it up and giving it a go shouldn't be too hard. After all, what really matters is how helpful the program is for your purposes. One aspect of personal finance that stops me from jumping to GnuCash/KMyMoney/MoneyDance is the ability to download transactions from my financial institutions. Last time I checked, the process was somewhat involved and support was limited for a handful of banks. Because of that, I decided to stick with MS Money (and once Microsoft dropped the ball, with Quicken). I am sure things are better these days, but I am still not comfortable with trusting my finances to something new and unproven. I still remember how painful it was several years ago, when some bug in MS Money caused occasional mess-up of the reconciliation state for the American Express credit cards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "198cba582cbd5efbc4acd1da63d19d23", "text": "You could try looking for a UK implementation of http://www.yodlee.com/ : Google tells me that http://www.lovemoney.com/ ( http://www.yodlee.com/2010_1_20.html ) is one such service. I use ANZ money manager - an Australian implementation of Yodlee and find it very useful. I wouldn't use Yodlee directly though (http://money-watch.co.uk/7197/uk-pfm-tool-review-yodlee-moneycenter) those T&Cs don't sound great.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "322adf88e50cec540e2b289c981ad770", "text": "You can invest in a couple of Sharia-conform ETFs which are available in Germany and issued by Deutsche Bank (and other financial institutions). For instance, have a look at these ETFs: DB Sharia ETFs In addition, Kuveyt Turk Bank aims to become Germany's first Islamic bank offering Sharia conform investments (Reuters).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b21b7787891776d81772e462a27e786", "text": "\"My wife and I have been ridiculously happy with YNAB. It's not \"\"online,\"\" but syncs across our phones & computers using Dropbox. It supposedly supports different locales and currencies, but I have never needed to try that out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "638947ae1029dd877c240c92506276e6", "text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90b0557ba3649538e4ef1b972e18f484", "text": "Mint.com is a fantastic free personal finance software that can assist you with managing your money, planning budgets and setting financial goals. I've found the features to be more than adequate with keeping me informed of my financial situation. The advantage with Mint over Microsoft Money is that all of your debit/credit transactions are automatically imported and categorized (imperfectly but good enough). Mint is capable of handling bank accounts, credit card accounts, loans, and assets (such as cars, houses, etc). The downsides are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e89d3c295686a29498edd78227a5181", "text": "Take a look at Everbank. They offer CDs and Money Market Accounts denominated in Euros for US residents. https://www.everbank.com/personal/foreign-currencies.aspx", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ec741c8c86592e33bb9e96b367e02cc", "text": "The answer today is the Fidelity Rewards Amex. This card pays the highest cash back (2%) on ALL purchases. The answer gets more complicated if you like miles, or you want to use one card for groceries and gas and another for restaurants, etc. But the Fidelity Amex gives you 2% on everything you purchase, automatically deposited into your Fidelity account as cash (no coupons to rip off, or checks to deposit).", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
1c9b9a1896963553313256a40eb618ba
Return on asset (ROA) value for a stock is reported differently on Yahoo Finance and MarketWatch
[ { "docid": "752bb99d8cc3124e1fcb2118204503bf", "text": "\"Why there is this huge difference? I am not able to reconcile Yahoo's answer of 5.75%, even using their definition for ROA of: Return on Assets Formula: Earnings from Continuing Operations / Average Total Equity This ratio shows percentage of Returns to Total Assets of the company. This is a useful measure in analyzing how well a company uses its assets to produce earnings. I suspect the \"\"Average Total Equity\"\" in their formula is a typo, but using either measure I cannot come up with 5.75% for any 12-month period. I can, however, match MarketWatch's answer by looking at the 2016 fiscal year totals and using a \"\"traditional\"\" formula of Net Income / Average Total Assets: I'm NOT saying that MatketWatch is right and Yahoo is wrong - MW is using fiscal year totals while Yahoo is using trailing 12-month numbers, and Yahoo uses \"\"Earnings from Continuing Operations\"\", but even using that number (which Yahoo calculates) I am not able to reconcile the 5.75% they give.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e72fec842579c94379154c5c9e31b87d", "text": "IESC has a one-time, non-repeatable event in its operating income stream. It magnifies operating income by about a factor of five. It impacts both the numerator and the denominator. Without knowing exactly how the adjustments are made it would take too much work for me to calculate it exactly, but I did get close to their number using a relatively crude adjustment rule. Basically, Yahoo is excluding one-time events from its definitions since, although they are classified as operating events, they distort the financial record. I teach securities analysis and have done it as a profession. If I had to choose between Yahoo and Marketwatch, at least for this security, I would clearly choose Yahoo.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "d238ec6fd530336220b4cc773858845b", "text": "\"Regarding SPY: \"\"One SPDR unit is valued at approximately 1/10 of the value of the S&P 500. Dividends are distributed quarterly, and are based on the accumulated stock dividends held in trust, less any expenses of the trust.\"\" (source) These are depository receipts, not the actual stocks. Regarding IVV: \"\"The component stocks are weighted according to the total float-adjusted market value of their outstanding shares. The Fund invests in sectors, such as energy, information technology, industrials, financials, consumer staples, healthcare, telecom services, consumer discretionary and materials.\"\" (more here) VOO is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The tracking error seems pretty small to me. I went to Google Finance and plotted the percent change for all four on one chart. They lie pretty much on top of one another. The actual dollar value of each one doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that they move up and down almost in lock-step. There may be a larger difference going farther out, but for three separate financial products, the agreement is still remarkably good.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2649f29b989d8e7f895fca5b3d7d7194", "text": "\"At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay times for other exchanges. All information provided \"\"as is\"\" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo! and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0d96161e8f3b899c36c596612638ed2", "text": "The dividend is for a quarter of the year, three months. 80 cents is 3.9% of $20.51. Presumably the Div/yield changes as the stock price changes. On Yahoo, they specify that the yield is based on a particular stated date. So it's only the exact number if the stock trades at the price on that date.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff68b09fef2ab83c41d8cf7759d12c2c", "text": "The point of that question is to test if the user can connect shares and stock price. However, that being said yeah, you're right. Probably gives off the impression that it's a bit elementary. I'll look into changing it asap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd44af0ba38fa7d68265e7bc6603f04d", "text": "According to Active Equity Management by Zhou and Jain: When a stock pays dividend, the adjusted price in Yahoo makes the following adjustment: Let T be the ex-dividend date (the first date that the buyers of a stock will not receive the dividend) and T-1 be the last trading day before T. All prices before T are adjusted by a multiplier (C_{T-1} - d_T)/C_{T-1}, where C_{T-1} is the close price at T-1 and d_T is the dividend per share. This, of course means that the price before T decreases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2750c9f04e427d75763d6cd66272524", "text": "\"@jidugger mostly got it right. It basically mean that past performance of a stock, or a basket of stocks, are not at all useful when trying to predict its future. There is no proven correlation between past and future performance. If there was such a correlation, that was \"\"proven\"\" or known, then investors would quickly exploit this correlation by buying or selling this stock, thus nullifying the prediction. It doesn't mean the specific individuals cannot predict the future stock market - hell, if I set up 2^100 different robots, where every robots gives a different series of answers to the 100 questions \"\"how will stock X do Y days from now\"\" (for 1<=Y<=100), then one of those robots would be perfectly correct. The problem is that an outside observer has no way of knowing which of the predictor robots is right. To say that stock is memoryless strikes me as not quite right -- to the extent that stocks are valued based on earnings, much of what we infer about future earnings relies on past and present earnings. To put it another way - you have $1000 now, and need to decide whether to invest in a particular stock, or a stock index. The \"\"memoryless\"\" property means that no matter how many earning reports you view ... by the time you see them, the stock price already accounts for them, so they're not useful to you. If the earning reports are positive, the stock is already \"\"too high\"\" because people bought it before you did. So on average, you can't use this information to predict the stock's future performance, and are better off investing in an index fund (unless you desire extra risk that doesn't come with more profitability).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "214445bd7aa7f6195f71f07ccf8b2df9", "text": "that's just it, though - they are splitting up the 1%! and in most cases, especially vanguard, they are splitting up far less. ETFs don't have 12b-1 fees. explaining why you're experiencing different returns for ETFs will almost certainly involve something other than their expense. again, this is especially true for vanguard. they have the cheapest ETFs around (though i think schwab beats them on a few now). i can only guess at the full compensation structure. betterment likely earns money on cash reserves and securities hypothecation (i guess?). they also charge a small fee from what i understand. finance is very slim these days. i guess i'm wondering what your ultimate question is. if it's the inter corporate compensation structure, above is my best guess. if it's about performance, then we need to compare the ETFs you are looking at. if it's about the fees on funds, i think we covered that! as an advisor, it's my experience that very specific inquiries about fees have a deeper concern. people hear a lot about being overcharged so cost is a very standard place for clients to initially look when trying to compare performance of portfolios or securities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9657c607586b37a6adb1bcd2413064", "text": "Returns reported by mutual funds to shareholders, google, etc. are computed after all the funds' costs, including Therefore the returns you see on google finance are the returns you would actually have gotten.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d298f15e936007876cd081e40c7107c7", "text": "I think what's screwing up my calculation is the (reL), return on equity levereged figure. The beta for KORS apparently is -0.58, so when I use the formula reL = rf + (ßL)(rm - rf), I get -0.0048 as my reL. Am I doing my beta wrong? Am I supposed to use a different figure for my beta? ALSO, further in the process, when using the formula for WACC, my E/(D+E) is essentially 1.0 because market value of equity for KORS is 7bill and its market value of debt is only like 147 million. edit: I'm beginning to believe that my beta of -0.58 is not rightly used. It's what yahoo told me, but other sources are saying that the beta of KORS is more like -0.01 or close to 0. Yes? edit 2: Using -0.01 beta, I get a rdWACC of 2.2%. Now this seems more plausible. I did some research on negative betas and found out that they basically don't really exist aside from gold. So Yahoo must be giving me a weird beta figure. Other websites are all giving me -0.01, so I believe that is correct.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f09a659705f500b5a9e46f2f59bb4d0", "text": "This idea does not make sense for most mutual funds. The net asset value, or NAV, is the current market value of a fund's holdings, minus the fund's liabilities, that is usually expressed as a per-share amount. For most funds, the NAV is determined daily, after the close of trading on some specified financial exchange, but some funds update their NAV multiple times during the trading day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund I am not certain, but I believe that OppenheimerFunds does not report intraday prices. I would call them up and ask.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0abcd449cae2ed7664022837ddd01ced", "text": "\"Google's RSI is using a 10 period on 2 minute bars - i.e. it is based upon the last 20 minutes of data. Yahoo's RSI is using a 14 period lookback on an undetermined timeframe (you could maybe mouse-over and see what incremental part of the chart is giving) and given the \"\"choppier\"\" price chart, probably 30 second or 1 minute bars. Given the difference in both the period specified and the periodicity of the charts - you should expect different results.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f214c7896e53e4033f83168ea3ed4c4", "text": "The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "548619a630faece1dba4884501db7316", "text": "I should have been clearer but my point was that the NYSE seems to be blaming third party vendors for reporting invalid test data but their own website reported the same data so it seems like there might be another issue. Edit: Found the full comment. It seems that NASDAQ distributed the test data and other parties including the NYSE incorrectly displayed it. I can (barely) understand some third parties incorrectly reporting this data but it seems really bizarre that NYSE wouldn't know how to handle this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3a1c1a22b4ef798a3315cc961bded21", "text": "In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "141996ecd5b6a61868abb87b8a3326de", "text": "In my experiences most hedge funds won't have a benchmark in their mandate and are evaluated based upon absolute returns. Their benchmarks are generally cash + x basis points. So, no attribution and no IR. No experience at all with CTA's though, so not sure how things are there.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
94e05ba87ff11332ad0f47c157921477
Correct Ways of Importing Personal Finance Transaction Data
[ { "docid": "05c1584104a608dbd02b92a376e479f0", "text": "You'll need to find out in what format MoneyStrands expects the data. A .qif or an .ofx file may not be the answer.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "500aba91d79281094dbadba775df5b7a", "text": "I'm using iBank on my Mac here and that definitely supports different currencies and is also supposed to be able to track investments (I haven't used it to track investments yet, hence the 'supposed to' caveat).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "763b586d811fa6556c94d509dafdbe69", "text": "\"Yodlee and Mint are good solutions if you don't mind your personal financial information being stored \"\"in the cloud\"\". I do, so I use Quicken. Quicken stores whatever you give to it for as long as you want: so the only question is how to get the credit card transactions you want into it? All my financial institutions allow me to view my credit card statements for a year back, and download them in a form Quicken can read. So you can have a record of your transactions from a year ago right now, and in a year you will have two year's worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82d2d4a07821a9bb5dad39c545650d9a", "text": "Assuming you have registered your activities as partnership and receiving this money as Individual, you need to show this under Schedule OS, 1d [other income]. this will be under the ITR-2 [tab CG-OS] XLS tax preparation utility given by Tax Department. The XLS can be found at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/portal/individual_huf.do If the funds you are receiving are large [more than say Rs 500,000] then suggest you incorporate a partnership firm or company, there are quite a few exceptions you can claim lowering you tax outgo. The fact that you are transferring funds to your partners can be an issue incase you get audited. You would need to have sufficient evidence to show that the money paid was for services rendered directly and not your income. It would be easier if you create a partnership or have the client directly pay to them. Again if the sum is small its fine, as the sum becomes large, it would get noticed by the tax authorities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bda3e210ba9b35e0f5b54f23bb862c4", "text": "I use MoneyStrands (formerly called Expensr), but mostly just to track expenses and look at reports on my spending habits. It has some really pretty charts, with the ability to drill down into categories and sub-categories, or graph monthly spending for any custom date range. It does a half-decent job of auto-categorizing the imported bank transactions, and you can set up additional rules for common vendors, but I still have to do some manual work after each import. It does a good job of integrating my credit cards, bank accounts, and I can even manually add cash transactions. It has some basic budgeting capabilities, but they're not very useful for someone who needs to carefully budget thier monthly spending. Another one I've heard about is mint.com, but it only supports American banks (last I heard, anyway).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53", "text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0efe2844118714ca1c92e0350393e1cb", "text": "You can take a shortcut and make a few cumulative transactions, maybe just estimate how much of your spending landed in each of your budget categories, but you will lose a lot of the value that you were building for yourself by tracking your spending during the earlier months. I reconcile my budget and categorize my spending on a monthly basis. It's always a chore to pull out the big stack of receipts and plow through them, but I've learned the value of having an accurate picture of where all my money went. There is no clean way to fake it. You can either take the time and reconcile your spending, or you can take a short cut. It probably renders your efforts to track everything from the beginning of the year invalid though. If you want to start over this month (as you did at the beginning of the year) that would probably be a cleaner way to reconcile things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc791ff7f4a2e648915913f2f2bc62ae", "text": "Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05dcedf1a1bea716785027fabcee543", "text": "\"Considering the fact that you are so unaware of how to find such data, I find it very very hard to believe that you actually need it. \"\"All trade and finance data for as much tickers and markets as possible.\"\" Wtf does that even mean. You could be referencing thousands of different types of data for any given \"\"ticker\"\" with a statement so vague. What are you looking for?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "830ab9fb4caf0738837905aa1d8a5b57", "text": "I generally concur with your sentiments. mint.com has 'hack me' written all over it. I know of two major open source tools for accounting: GNUCash and LedgerSMB. I use GNUCash, which comes close to meeting your needs: The 2.4 series introduced SQL DB support; mysql, postgres and sqlite are all supported. I migrated to sqlite to see how the schema looked and ran, the conclusion was that it runs fine but writing direct sql queries is probably beyond me. I may move it to postgres in the future, just so I can write some decent reports. Note that while it uses HTML for reporting, there is no no web frontend. It still requires a client, and is not multi-user safe. But it's probably about the closest to what you what that still falls under the heading of 'personal finance'. A fork of SQL Ledger, this is postgreSQL only but does have a web frontend. All the open source finance webapps I've found are designed for small to medium busineses. I believe it should meet your needs, though I've never used it. It might be overkill and difficult to use for your limited purposes though. I know one or two people in the regional LUG use LedgerSMB, but I really don't need invoicing and paystubs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af504736fd19c5cd3ff3b7ffda83e9c1", "text": "You decide on a cost bases attribution yourself, per transaction (except for averaging for mutual funds, which if I remember correctly applies to all the positions). It is not a decision your broker makes. Broker only needs to know what you've decided to report it to the IRS on 1099, but if the broker reported wrong basis (because you didn't update your account settings properly, or for whatever else reason) you can always correct it on form 8949 (columns f/g).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1577e21bf4ad3391c4631197ed104014", "text": "I would say when starting with Gnucash to start with the level of granularity you are comfortable with while sticking to the double entry bookkeeping practices. So going through each one: Refund for Parking Pass. Assuming you treat the Parking Pass as a sunk cost, i.e. an Expense account, its just a negative entry in the Expense account which turns into a positive one in your Bank account. Yes it may look weird, and if you don't like it you can always 'pay from Equity' the prior month, or your Bank Account if you're backfilling old statements. Selling physical items. If you sold it on eBay and the value is high enough you'll get tax forms indicating you've earned x. Even if its small or not done via eBay, treat it the same way and create a 'Personal Items/Goods' Income account to track all of it. So the money you get in your Bank account would have come from there. Found jacket money would be an Equity entry, either Opening Balances into Cash or Bank account. Remember you are treating Equity / Opening Balances as the state before you started recording every transaction so both the value going into Assets (Banks,Stock,Mutual Funds) and Liabilities (Mortgage, Student Debt, Credit Card Debt) originate from there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97793b3a30e5346c88a4c290d48d8e81", "text": "\"That's Imbalance-USD (or whatever your default currency is). This is the default \"\"uncategorized\"\" account. My question is, is it possible to get the \"\"unbalanced\"\" account to zero and eliminate it? Yes, it's possible to get this down to zero, and in fact desirable. Any transactions in there should be reviewed and fixed. You can delete it once you've emptied it, but it will be recreated the next time an unbalanced transaction is entered. Ideally, I figure it should autohide unless there's something in it, but it's a minor annoyance. Presumably you've imported a lot of data into what's known as a transaction account like checking, and it's all going to Imbalance, because it's double entry and it has to go somewhere. Open up the checking account and you'll see they're all going to Imbalance. You'll need to start creating expense, liability and income accounts to direct these into. Once you've got your history all classified, data entry will be easier. Autocomplete will suggest transactions, and online transaction pull will try to guess which account a given transaction should match with based on that data.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101bd8af9cec549d6f124020231f8ebe", "text": "\"These sort of issues in structuring your personal finances relative to expenses can get complicated quickly, as your example demonstrates. I would recommend a solution that reduces duplication as much as possible- and depending on what information you're interested in tracking you could set it up in very different ways. One solution would be to create virtual sub accounts of your assets, and to record the source of money rather than the destination. Thus, when you do an expense report, you can limit on the \"\"his\"\" or \"\"hers\"\" asset accounts, and see only the expenses which pertain to those accounts (likewise for liabilities/credit cards). If, on the other hand, you're more interested in a running sum of expenses- rather than create \"\"Me\"\" and \"\"Spouse\"\" accounts at every leaf of the expense tree, it would make much more sense to create top level accounts for Expenses:His:etc and Expenses:Hers:etc. Using this model, you could create only the sub expense accounts that apply for each of your spending (with matching account structures for common accounts).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c509b1b72a4cbf876193786938eb9a1", "text": "Use one journal entry, and split the expenses into the appropriate accounts. This can happen even if you never mix business and personal on the same receipt: say you order office supplies (which where I live are immediately deductible as an expense) and software or hardware (which must be depreciated because they are assets) on the same order. We have an account called Proprietors Loan which represents money the company is lending to the humans who own it, or that the humans are lending to the company. Were I to pay for my personal lunch on a business credit card, it would go through that account, increasing the amount the company has lent me or decreasing the amount I have lent it. Similarly if I made a business purchase with a personal card it would go through that account in the other direction. Where I live, I can lend my company all the money I want any time, but if the company lends me money there can't be an outstanding balance over the corporate year end. If you make two credit card entries of 5 and 10 when you go to reconcile your accounts it will be harder because you'll have to realize they together match the single 15 line on your statement. Making a single entry (your A option) will make reconciling your statement much easier. And that way, you'll probably reconcile your statements, which is vital to knowing you actually recorded everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592", "text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
8232ca8d23997cbc7bf14ee759c8255a
Advantage of Financial Times vs. free news sources for improving own knowledge of finance?
[ { "docid": "953998066744ca70bd3d52152d186a3a", "text": "\"If you are interested in a career in algorithmic trading, I strongly encourage you to formally study math and computer science. Algorithmic trading firms have no need for employees with financial knowledge; if they did, they'd just be called \"\"trading\"\" firms. Rather, they need experts in machine learning, statistical modeling, and computer science in general. Of course there are other avenues of employment at an algorithmic trading firm, such as accounting, clearing, exchange relations, etc. If that's the sort of thing you're interested in, again you'll probably want a formal education in those areas as opposed to just reading about finance in the news. If you edit your question or add a comment below with information about your particular background, I could perhaps advise you in a bit more detail. ::edit:: Given your comment, I would say you have a fine academic background for the industry. When hiring mathematicians, firms care most about the ease with which you can explore and extract features from massive datasets (especially time series) regardless of what the dataset might represent. An intelligent firm will not care whether you arrive at their doorstep with zero finance knowledge; they will want to teach you everything from scratch anyway. Nonetheless, some domain knowledge could be helpful, but you're not going to get \"\"more\"\" of it from reading any mass market news source, whether you have to pay for it or not. That's because Some non-mass-market news sources in the industry are These are subscription-only and actually discuss real information that real professional investors care about. They are loaded with industry jargon, they're extremely opinionated, and (in my opinion) they're useless. I can't imagine trying to learn about the industry from them, but if you want to spend money for news in order to be exposed to the innards of the industry, then either of these is far better than the Financial Times. Despite requiring a subscription, the Financial Times still does not cover the technical details of professional trading. Instead of trying to learn from news, then, I would suggest some old favorites: and, above all else, Read everything in the navigation box on the right side under Financial Markets and Financial Instruments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17cf758f8e2e0a11647bb7e31b985214", "text": "I recommend using Morning Brew. They email you a free daily newsletter with the top financial news stories and earnings events. I have subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times before. Morning Brew basically covers all of the headlines you would see on those sites.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "5b00300f2a333c26c62eefd7a6367917", "text": "When you look at the charts in Google Finance, they put the news on the right hand side. The time stamp for each news item is indicated with a letter in the chart. This often shows what news the market is reacting to. In your example: Clicking on the letter F leads to this Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/usa-housing-s-idUSWAT01486120110204", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86b61a90ea52490a30f14b30e5b529ea", "text": "I really want people to answer this. I need to build my general macro repertoire and good news is key. I was getting the Bridgewater Dailies at my last job and they are *fantastic*. Unfortunately they are super expensive and only businesses can afford them. I read a lot of the general economics output of major banks which is free on their websites. I also read a selection of blogs which have an economics/macro tilt, but tend to be a lot of opinion and academic stuff. This is what I've been reading recently: [Krugman](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) [Marginal Revolution](http://marginalrevolution.com/) [Project Syndicate](http://www.project-syndicate.org/) [Noah Smith](http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.jp/) [The Upshot](http://www.nytimes.com/upshot/) I also read Reuters for economics news generally since there is no paywall. Hope this helps, and I really hope there is more quality free stuff out there that I've missed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2d27d9aa0824213fa71520c93956ae6", "text": "I'm not familiar enough with finance in any capacity to know what the difference is between financial services or a finance department (beyond what you said); my familiarity of the industry extends to trading, rating, and financial law enforcement. But at a glance on mobile, that looks like pretty much exactly what I was looking for. I have no connect to the industry, but habe been on a Wall St media binge lately, and like to understand powerful/influencial sectors of society anyways. Thanks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe2b4964c94e8abe07e89dd3184434d5", "text": "A lot of business sites are subscription only. Financial Times is the most obvious example. The Economist is the other. At least The Economist is making a very strong, healthy profit. A lot of other businesses work on a Freemium model, most obviously Bloomberg. The Bloomberg Terminal costs 24k a year to lease, and it has a stronghold on the financial community. But you can get tons of Bloomberg news and data on their site/channel for free. Why? Because having that wide public reach adds value to Bloomberg--they have access to a lot of industry insiders who exchange tips etc. for the ability to leak info to the public, etc. It's a smart business model and works very well. There are other models that work equally well, but I think a lot of people don't really realize this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4a2c069e2edc99ea7564268e3c15177", "text": "ZeroHedge is the best, although it appeals to a particular audience (highly educated economics/business folks with a very negative view of government). They pull articles from all over the web, so you get a really good aggregator with maybe 20 articles/day of high quality work. Bloomberg I read if there's a good topic. That pops up on facebook for me and I read probably 10/day. Wall Street Journal is great if you want mainstream (read: delayed) business news. Most of the things that are truly news are long-term in nature and you'd read about them on ZeroHedge far before the WSJ. I used to read Dealbook a lot, although I've gotten away from it lately due to the lack of mergers &amp; acquisitions activity. Lastly, I used to have a blogroll of maybe 5-10 investment blogs with truly great writers/thinkers, but alas, most have stopped writing now. sorry about the delay. forgot I saw your question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77ecf212f4efc907eee18d547f3912ca", "text": "No career advice or homework help (unless your homework is some kind of big project and you need an explanation on a concept). I want to see financial news, legislation concerning the markets and regulation, self posts about financial concepts, opinion articles about finance from reputable sources, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7c88a34a19c3733628f3d876b4824f0", "text": "My two cents: I, like many people in finance, got into it for the money. However, I like many other people, found myself liking it for intrinsic reasons once I got into it. I genuinely enjoy learning about financial theory, economics, understanding how global markets work, following the different story lines for the EU/US/Asian economies, working on financial models, reading the WSJ, keeping up to date on new earning releases, analyzing investments, learning about companies/industries, etc. But I never would have found out that I liked these things unless I had chosen to study them and the only reason I chose to study them in the first place was because I wanted to make money. I'd take an intro finance class and see if it seems like something that could grow on you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1e602cc8a0a180de687772c277a3c8b", "text": "Depends what you mean by business world and finance world. NYTimes Sunday business section is a good start - mostly for large business. The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need by Andrew Tobias for how to invest your personal money - and you'll see why no one who says they can predict the market is accurate for very long. INC Magazine for running a small company", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86b35b25f883dbda4f6626fba74a404f", "text": "Yes, there are very lucrative opportunities available by using financial news releases. A lot of times other people just aren't looking in less popular markets, or you may observe the news source before other people realize it, or may interpret the news differently than the other market participants. There is also the buy the rumor, sell the news mantra - for positive expected information (opposite for negative expected news), which results in a counterintuitive trading pattern.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29a40af24f93fca95608892442b874f3", "text": "There are all sorts of topics in finance that take a lot of time to learn. You have valuation (time value of money, capital asset pricing model, dividend discount model, etc.), financial statement analysis (ratio analysis, free cash flow &amp; discounted cash flow, etc.) , capital structure analysis(Modgliani &amp; Miller theories of capital structure, weighted average cost of capital, more CAPM, the likes), and portfolio management (asset allocation, security selection, integrates financial statement analysis + other fields like derivatives, fixed income, forex, and commodity markets) and all sorts. My opinion of Investopedia is that there is a lot of wheat with the chaff. I think articles/entries are just user-submitted and there are good gems in Investopedia but a lot of it only covers very basic concepts. And you often don't know what you don't know, so you might come out with a weak understanding of something. To begin, you need to understand TVM and why it works. Time value of money is a critical concept of finance that I feel many people don't truly grasp and just understand you need some 'rate' to use for this formula. Also, as a prereq, you should understand basics of accrual accounting (debits &amp; credits) and how the accounting system works. Don't need to know things like asset retirement obligations, or anything fancy, just how accounting works and how things affect certain financial statements. After that, I'd jump into CAPM and cost of capital. Cost of capital is also a very misunderstood concept since schools often just give students the 'cost of capital' for math problems when in reality, it's not just an explicit number but more of a 'general feeling' in the environment. Calculating cost of capital is actually often very tricky (market risk premium) and subjective, sometimes it's not (LIBOR based). After that, you can build up on those basic concepts and start to do things like dividend discount models (basic theory underlying asset pricing models) and capital asset pricing models, which builds on the idea of cost of capital. Then go into valuation. Learn how to price equities, bonds, derivatives, etc. For example, you have the dividend discount model with typical equities and perpetuities. Fixed income has things like duration &amp; convexity to measure risk and analyze yield curves. Derivatives, you have the Black-Scholes model and other 'derivatives' (heh) of that formula for calculating prices of options, futures, CDOs, etc. Valuation is essentially taking the idea of TVM to the next logical step. Then you can start delving into financial modelling. Free cash flows, discounted cash flows, ratio analysis, pro forma projections. Start small, use a structured problem that gives you some inputs and just do calculations. Bonuses* would be ideas of capital structure (really not necessary for entry level positions) like the M&amp;M theorems on capital structure (debt vs equity), portfolio management (risk management, asset allocation, hedging, investment strategies like straddles, inverse floaters, etc), and knowledge of financial institutions and banking regulations (Basel accords, depository regulations, the Fed, etc.). Once you gain an understanding of how this works, pick something out there and do a report on it. Then you'll be left with a single 'word problem' that gives you nothing except a problem and tells you to find an answer. You'll have to find all the inputs and give reasons why these inputs are sound and reasonable inputs for this analysis. A big part that people don't understand about projections and analysis is that **inputs don't exist in plain sight**. You have to make a lot of judgment calls when making these assumptions and it takes a lot of technical understanding to make a reasonable assumption--of which the results of your report highly depend on. As a finance student, you get a taste for all of this. I'm gonna say it's going to be hard to learn a lot of substantial info in 2 months, but I'm not exactly sure what big business expects out of their grunts. You'll mostly be doing practical work like desk jockey business, data entry, and other labor-based jobs. If you know what you're talking about, you can probably work up to something more specialized like underwriting or risk management or something else. Source: Finance degree but currently working towards starting a (finance related) company to draw on my programming background as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15a8d776bf4427047a8a551633407a1b", "text": "\"You need to understand how various entities make their money. Once you know that, you can determine whether their interests are aligned with yours. For example, a full-service broker makes money when you buy and sell stocks. They therefore have in interest in you doing lots of buying, and selling, not in making you money. Or, no-fee financial advisors make their money through commissions on what they sell you, which means their interests are served by selling you those investments with high commissions, not the investments that would serve you best. Financial media makes their money through attracting viewers/readers and selling advertising. That is their business, and they are not in the business of giving good advice. There are lots of good investments - index funds are a great example - that don't get much attention because there isn't any money in them. In fact, the majority of \"\"wall street\"\" is not aligned with your interests, so be skeptical of the financial industry in general. There are \"\"for fee\"\" financial advisors who you pay directly; their interests are fairly well aligned with yours. There is a fair amount of good information at The Motley Fool\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8284a304ec0a33537118b3160d64bd4", "text": "Imagine an internet where the best content was behind a pay wall while the buzzfeed, gawker, and even yahoo were free. You can get your standard journalism plus clickbait for free, but you could also support the greatest content on the web while providing it greater power by generating it revenue. All by choice, of course. If you don't want a premium product, the best journalism and well constructed opinion pieces, don't pay for it. Of course freemium, such as the way the economist is currently, i.e. 3 free articles a week (or something like that), is the best way to attract new customers. But I strongly feel that the best journalism is worth more than the clickbait garbage despite that I won't click an irrelevant ad simple because I feel the article is better crafted. This, I would be willing to pay more for it even on the internet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc630ecd66dc499dc67deceaf82681ed", "text": "\"In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on \"\"priority\"\", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3). As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly. (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef08f8282500399d92fa6386732c2dcf", "text": "as someone who made a fair attempt at understanding money subjects, I'd like some more writing from you. I took high school level Marketing; Business economics; commercial law. it took six months on top of my previous High school ( with high level maths). during those months I got medium grades, and failed in- can you believe it - marketing. I had a go at The intelligent investor. I made it to page 96. But honestly I felt like I needed a lot of background in order for me to understand it. English is my second language. Sure I can understand words like liability vs assets. but to this day i still can't remember the difference between a bull and bearish market. I know its about risk assesment on a national/ global level. So who honestly gave finance a go but got their ass kicked. What would you say? any books?", "title": "" }, { "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": "" } ]
fiqa
a924f050650666a5b0a4451ffd54ed86
Personal finance software for Mac that can track stocks and mutual funds? (Even manual updating of share prices will do.)
[ { "docid": "500aba91d79281094dbadba775df5b7a", "text": "I'm using iBank on my Mac here and that definitely supports different currencies and is also supposed to be able to track investments (I haven't used it to track investments yet, hence the 'supposed to' caveat).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20dc26fdf817c8a9093762d1cb56b384", "text": "\"Quicken for Mac will track stocks and mutual funds and allows you to set the \"\"home\"\" currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f30604cdaf6d233b808313a4423f3974", "text": "I currently use Moneydance on my Mac. Before that I had used Quicken on a PC until version 2007. It is pretty good, does most simple investment stuff just fine. It can automatically download prices for regular stocks. Mutual funds I have to input by hand.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "992dc4a9ec3108d705e47fbb0ccb0bf4", "text": "\"Real-time equity (or any other market) data is not available for free anywhere in the US. It is always delayed by 10-15 minutes. On the other hand, online brokers who target the \"\"day trader\"\" (Interactive Brokers, TD Ameritrade, etc.) offer much closer to real-time data AND feature all the tools/alerts/charts/etc. you could ever possibly dream of. I bet the type of alert you're asking for is available with just a couple of clicks on one of these brokers' platforms. Of course, accounts with these online brokers are not free; you must pay for these sophisticated tools and fast market access. Another down side is that the data feeds sent to you by even the most sophisticated online broker are still delayed by tens of seconds compared to the data feeds used by big banks and professional investors. Not to mention that the investment arm of the broker you use will be making its own trades based on the data feeds before relaying them on to you. So this begs the question: why do you need real-time information? Are you trying to \"\"day trade\"\" -- i.e. profit from minute-to-minute fluctuations in the stock market? (I can't in good conscience recommend that, but best of luck to you.) If on the other hand you don't truly need \"\"real-time\"\" data for your application, then I support @ChrisDegnen's approach -- use public data feeds and write your own software. You probably will not find any free tools for the sort of alerting you're looking for because most folks who want these types of alerts also need faster feeds and are therefore already using an online broker's tools.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "363623e8db02bc05fde13f8e5d82c593", "text": "To answer your question, plugins aren't cross-platform, so if you need Bloomberg or other third-party vendor data feeds, you're probably out of luck. Now, for the rant: Hot keys, hot keys, hot keys. Using Excel on a Mac is like working with your fingers glued together if you use Windows Excel all day at work. I have a windows laptop at home just for Bloomberg + Excel. If you make money using Excel, you need to consider at least getting VMWare Fusion or Parallels and running windows on your Mac. Once you are decent in Excel, you'll hate the lack of page up/down and home/end keys on your Mac, as I do with mine. The Fn+Ctrl+Left/Down/Up/Left just isn't the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e6f5a82008f9330d2061b78d7cbadd5", "text": "I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&amp;P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bfedbdd63f74534043d2d59fcef16b4", "text": "Like others have said, mutual funds don't have an intraday NAV, but their ETF equivalents do. Use something like Yahoo Finance and search for the ETF.IV. For example VOO.IV. This will give you not the ETF price (which may be at a premium or discount), but the value of the underlying securities updated every 15 seconds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3451c2779bca4a3422a1edf0de832b52", "text": "At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e7fa2cff773fce251baa01ef94778ef", "text": "We have custom software written in mostly C# for the long term strategies. Day trading is done on multiple platforms. Currently using ToS scripts for some futures and equities strategies to great success, and sierra charts for a few futures exclusively. I just moved into a position to work with day trading so I'm still learning more about the systems he uses", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ae8bb9c6037940703df953381b830ee", "text": "I have been using bearsofts money app, both in mac and iOS. I think only down side with this apps is you need to buy them separately. http://ibearmoney.com/money-mac.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81eea8857109ec0260c922f2c9a4e4c3", "text": "There is a great 3rd party application out there that I use (I am a broker) along with my internal analysts and other 3rd party sources. VectorVest has a LOT of technical information, but is very easy to use. It will run any kind of screen you like, including low 52 week numbers. (No, I don't get anything for recommending them.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aa935aa25a7851ccd845e69c74c8def", "text": "\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec01e6ad07bd6f63d716dde54886fb4c", "text": "\"My broker (thinkorswim) offers this from the platform's trade tab. I believe this feature isn't crippled in the PaperMoney version which is effectively a \"\"free online service.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5685b1ded2c93079cd5e6b11fdc85535", "text": "I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be84e4133969ba6462f5fa6309b578b", "text": "About 10 years ago, I used to use MetaStock Trader which was a very sound tool, with a large number of indicators, but it has been a number of years since I have used it, so my comments on it will be out of date. At the time it relied upon me purchasing trading data myself, which is why I switched to Incredible Charts. I currently use Incredible Charts which I have done for a number of years, initially on the free adware service, now on the $10/year for EOD data access. There are quicker levels of data access, which might suit you, but I can't comment on these. It is web-based which is key for me. The data quality is very good and the number of inbuilt indicators is excellent. You can build search routines on the basis of specific indicators which is very effective. I'm looking at VectorVest, as a replacement for (or in addition to) Incredible Charts, as it has very powerful backtesting routines and the ability to run test portfolios with specific buy/sell criteria that can simulate and backtest a number of trading scenarios at the same time. The advantage of all of these is they are not tied to a particular broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf879d817b1a282b62a24a5bf1dc6ed0", "text": "\"I'm another programmer, I guess we all just like complicated things, or got here via stackoverflow. Obligatory tedious but accurate point: Investing is not personal finance, in fact it's maybe one of the less important parts of it. See this answer: Where to start with personal finance? Obligatory warning for software developer type minds: getting into investing because it's complicated and therefore fun is a really awful idea from a financial perspective. Or see behavioral finance research on how analytical/professional/creative type people are often terrible at investing, while even-tempered practical people are better. The thing with investing is that inaction is better than action, tried and true is better than creative, and simple is better than complicated. So if you're like me and many programmers and like creative, complicated action - not good for the wallet. You've been warned. That said. :-) Stuff I read In general I hate reading too much financial information because I think it makes me take ill-advised actions. The actions I most need to take have to do with my career and my spending patterns. So I try to focus on reading about software development, for example. Or I answer questions on this site, which at least might help someone out, and I enjoy writing. For basic financial news and research, I prefer Morningstar.com, especially if you get the premium version. The writing has more depth, it's often from qualified financial analysts, and with the paid version you get data and analysis on thousands of funds and stocks, instead of a small number as with Motley Fool newsletters. I don't follow Morningstar regularly anymore, instead I use it for research when I need to pick funds in a 401k or whatever. Another caveat on Morningstar is that the \"\"star ratings\"\" on funds are dumb. Look at the Analyst Picks and the analyst writeups instead. I just flipped through my RSS reader and I have 20-30 finance-related blogs in there collecting unread posts. It looks like the only one I regularly read is http://alephblog.com/ which is sort of random. But I find David Merkel very thoughtful and interesting. He's also a conservative without being a partisan hack, and posts frequently. I read the weekly market comment at http://hussmanfunds.com/ as well. Most weeks it says the market is overvalued, so that's predictable, but the interesting part is the rationale and the other ideas he talks about. I read a lot of software-related blogs and there's some bleed into finance, especially from the VC world; blogs like http://www.avc.com/ or http://bhorowitz.com/ or whatever. Anyway I spend most of my reading time on career-related stuff and I think this is also the correct decision from a financial perspective. If you were a doctor, you'd be better off reading about doctoring, too. I read finance-related books fairly often, I guess there are other threads listing ideas on that front. I prefer books about principles rather than a barrage of daily financial news and questionable ideas. Other than that, I keep up with headlines, just reading the paper every day including business-related topics is good enough. If there's some big event in the financial markets, it'll show up in the regular paper. Take a class I initially learned about finance by reading a pile of books and alongside that taking the CFP course and the first CFA course. Both are probably equivalent to about a college semester worth of work, but you can plow through them in a couple months each if you focus. You can just do the class (and take the exam if you like), without having to go on and actually get the work experience and the certifications. I didn't go on to do that. This sounds like a crazy thing to do, and it kind of is, but I think it's also sort of crazy to expect to be competent on a topic without taking some courses or otherwise getting pretty deep into the material. If you're a normal person and don't have time to take finance courses, you're likely better off either keeping it super-simple, or else outsourcing if you can find the right advisor: What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? When it's inevitably complex (e.g. as you approach retirement) then an advisor is best. My mom is retiring soon and I found her a professional, for example. I like having a lot of knowledge myself, because it's just the only way I could feel comfortable. So for sure I understand other people wanting to have it too. But what I'd share from the other side is that once you have it, the conclusion is that you don't have enough knowledge (or time) to do anything fancy anyway, and that the simple answers are fine. Check out http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 Investing for fun isn't investing for profit Many people recommend Motley Fool (I see two on this question already!). The site isn't evil, but the problem (in my opinion) is that it promotes an attitude toward and a style of investing that isn't objectively justifiable for practical reasons. Essentially I don't think optimizing for making money and optimizing for having fun coexist very well. If investing is your chosen hobby rather than fishing or knitting, then Motley Fool can be fun with their tone and discussion forums, but other people in forums are just going to make you go wrong money-wise; see behavioral finance research again. Talking to others isn't compatible with ice in your decision-making veins. Also, Motley Fool tends to pervasively make it sound like active investing is easier than it is. There's a reason the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum is a few reams of paper plus 4 years of work experience, rather than reading blogs. Practical investing (\"\"just buy the target date fund\"\") can be super easy, but once you go beyond that, it's not. I don't really agree with the \"\"anyone can do it and it's not work!\"\" premise, any more than I think that about lawyering or doctoring or computer programming. After 15 years I'm a programming expert; after some courses and a lot of reading, I'm not someone who could professionally run an actively-managed portfolio. I think most of us need to have the fun part separate from the serious cash part. Maybe literally distinct accounts that you keep at separate brokerages. Or just do something else for fun, besides investing. Morningstar has this problem too, and finance.yahoo.com, and Bloomberg, I mean, they are all interested in making you think about investing a lot more than you ought to. They all have an incentive to convince you that the latest headlines make a difference, when they don't. Bottom line, I don't think personal finance changes very quickly; the details of specific mutual funds change, and there's always some new twist in the tax code, but the big picture is pretty stable. I think going in-depth (say, read the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum materials) would teach you a lot more than reading blogs frequently. The most important things to work on are income (career) and spending (to maximize income minus spending). That's where time investment will pay off. I know it's annoying to argue the premise of the question rather than answering, but I did try to mention a couple things to read somewhere in there ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a9e0f25e6a651144af61739899b4ea", "text": "Here's a link with comparison of various online and offline PF software: http://personalfinancesoftwarereviews.com/compare-personal-finance-software/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b33b239d31da5096123862b83c6b75f3", "text": "By extending your logic both BNSF and GEICO would be nearly thhe same companies as both have majority ownership of warren buffet. How companies act IS defined by the theater of competition and regulation. Sears ca and US are two very different companies with no operational overlap (other than sears brand name)", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
af882f058733cea220ef36d5600f9580
Money Saved on finance charges
[ { "docid": "d8d93091dc67ea4428fab885a4701634", "text": "Avoiding a cost (interest) isn't quite the same as income. There is no entry, nothing for you to consider for this avoided interest. What you do have is an expense that's no longer there, and you can decide to use that money elsewhere each month.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "cfe8e9dcb52bd41dc17b6d7e41bd1ca0", "text": "Probably not. A debit of 50K in your Bank statement does not mean that its invested into tax saving instrument. This question is best answered by the finance department of your company. Practise vary from organization to organization.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5c55a0be58149978b91ecb8eba52a1b", "text": "To get a good estimate, go here or other similar sites and see. But basically, yes, you can save yourself a whole lot of money just by paying extra every month. One note though, do make sure you are specifying that you want the money to go towards principal, not escrow or toward prepaying interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6af47f17f6fd97f28d4f350a19f7d229", "text": "The answer to question 1 is yes, you can always reduce your loan when you remortgage by introducing additional funds. There is some possibility a (relatively) small charge might be applicable for managing the marginally more complex transfer, but it shouldn't be too much.. The answer to question 2 is NONE of your over payment amounts would have gone on interest, but you MIGHT incur penalty charges. Interest is only charged on the outstanding loan amount (i.e. £100K initially, reducing to £85K over 2 years in your example) at the interest rate determined by your mortgage agreement - there is no 'paying off interest' as such. Over payments are essentially all capital payments, reducing the principal/loan amount, so no additional interest would be paid if you opted for over payments. If you used your £10K to made the over payments throughout the 2 year fixed period you would in fact have paid LESS interest by the end of the 2 years, because you would be reducing the loan amount at a quicker rate, and thus the interest you pay each month (based on the lower outstanding loan at that time) would be lower. BUT... over payments might have attracted over payment penalties (typically a percentage of the amount you pay) and these penalties often mean it's not worth doing. Most fixed term mortgages have such penalties, but it depends on the agreement, and many mortgages also allow you to make over payments up to a certain amount each year before you get hit. Edit (additional suggestion): If the example you provide is one based on what you expect might happen to you over the next couple of years, something you could CONSIDER is an offset mortgage. Here your £10K that you accumulate reduces your interest through the 2 years, but you keep it in savings where you can access it if you need to. Accessing it will then cause a corresponding rise in interest payments, but to no higher level than you would have been paying if you had nothing in the savings in the first place. You usually pay a slightly higher interest rate for these sort of mortgage, so it's impossible to know if it would be more economical, and how appropriate it would be for you in other respects depends on many factors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74084c4b8cc6c6fa4d9e432f6e43764e", "text": "It really depends on the terms of your loan. For example, some loans have a pre-payment penalty. You will just have to ask your lender to know for sure. That said. In almost all cases, you can save considerable interest by making extra payments towards the principal. Be careful though, some lenders require you to specifically mark the payment to be applied to the loan principal and if you don't designate it as such, they will just apply it as an early payment for future months and not reduce your balance until that future payment is due, which doesn't help at all. Another option to reduce your total interest costs, though more common for larger loans like mortgages, is to split the payment into multiple parts and pay more than once a month instead of a single payment each month. This only works if they calculate interest daily and would be useless if they do it monthly. They key is knowing the terms of your loan. Despite it not being in their best interest (pun intended), most lenders will work with you on a strategy to help you minimize the interest cost in the name of customer service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faf9f9e338f01e03d85205250f7a0f20", "text": "\"You're looking at the \"\"wrong\"\" credit. Here's the Wikipedia article about the bookkeeping (vs the Finance, that you've quoted) term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e31d8c3f836d3ec8d604107df90b5081", "text": "For the purpose of personal finance, treating $500 as Interest Expense is sufficient. For business accounting, it involves making the $500 a contra-liability and amortizing it as interest expense over the course of life of the loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2e80c349518ee93dd52768ec917fa84", "text": "I would take each of these items and any others and consider how you would count it as an expense in the other direction. If you have an account for parking expenses or general transportation funds, credit that account for a refund on your parking. If you have an account for expenses on technology purchases, you would credit that account if you sell a piece of equipment as you replace it with an upgrade. If you lost money (perhaps in a jacket) how would you account for the cash that is lost? Whatever account would would subtract from put a credit for cash found.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84a58fcc7c13404d5abcb07c7a8c7219", "text": "IRS Publication 502: Medical expenses are the costs of diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and the costs for treatments affecting any part or function of the body. Loan interest and fees do not meet this definition. Your loan interest and fees are a cost of the payment method you chose (a loan), not a cost of medical treatment. The IRS makes clear where loan interest is deductible. Publication 936 discusses home mortgage interest deductions, and Publication 970 specifically discusses student loan interest deductions. Considering Publication 502's definition of a medical expense, combined with the absence of a publication discussing medical expense loan interest deductions, one must conclude that medical loan interest and fees are not deductible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d799c3133fcb24c4d751bc73e760e3d", "text": "\"Lachlan has $600 cash and a car worth $500. That's $1,100. The new car is priced at $21,800. Lachlan needs a loan for $20,700. However, the finance company insists that the buyer must pay a 10% deposit, which is $2,180. Lachlan only has $1,100, so no loan. The car dealer wants to make a sale, so suggests some tricks. The car dealer could buy Lachlan's old banger for $1,500 instead of $500, and sell the new car for $22,800 instead of $21,800. Doesn't make a difference to the dealer, he gets the same amount of cash. Now Lachlan has $600 cash and $1,500 for his car or $2,100 in total. He needs 10% of $22,800 as deposit which is $2,280. That's not quite there but you see how the principle works. Lachlan is about $200 short. So the dealer adds $1,200 to both car prices. Lachlan has $600 cash and a car \"\"worth\"\" $1,700, total $2,300. The new car is sold for $23,000 requiring a $2,300 deposit which works out exactly. How could we have found the right amount without guessing? Lachlan had $1,100. The new car costs $21,800. The dealer increases both prices by x dollars. Lachlan has now $1,100 + x deposit. The car now costs $21,800 + x. The deposit should be 10%, so $1,100 + x = 10% of ($21,800 + x) = $2,180 + 0.1 x. $1,100 + x = $2,180 + 0.1 x : Subtract $1,100 x = $1,080 + 0.1 x : Subtract 0.1 x 0.9 x = $1,080 : Divide by 0.9 x = $1,080 / 0.9 = $1,200 The dealer inflates the cost of the new car and the value of the old car by $1,200. Now that's the theory. In practice I don't know how the finance company feels about this, and if they would be happy if they found out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6724e21772c00e77a51192829255d57e", "text": "So hopefully you are not spending the money before you make it. If you are, you are asking for trouble. If not the solution is easy. If you use a spreadsheet for tracking have a item in your checking account running total that is simply CC to pay. Lets say you just got paid, and your balance is like this: You can then do virtual withdrawals for each category In this case you have 70 left to spend. Whoops the car gets a flat which costs you 5 that you put on the card and you also pay your rent by CC. Then your spreadsheet should look like this: You still have the 70 left to spend, and when the CC bill comes due you are free to write the check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68951b4c12af986332c0bdd35a0d268e", "text": "This will not result in any finance charges: I wouldn't recommend cutting it quite so close, but as long as you pay the full balance as shown on each statement by the due date shown on that same statement, you won't incur a finance charge. Of course this only applies in the case of ordinary purchases that have a grace period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff8f7a486adf61b296339b15fb9d2700", "text": "Thanks for that, it did help. I think my issue is I don't work in finance itself, I'm a lawyer, and 'capital' generally has a very specific meaning in English company law, where it refers exclusively to shareholder capital. I realise capital in finance terms includes both debt and equity investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2d54102c2d480f7adc795284fb66e01", "text": "So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "459f2b37e547afbe10ef09522529d1d6", "text": "The best way is to retain the charge slips. After you are done for the month you can discard them. Alternatively if you are using any of the personal finance tool or a simple XLS to track exepnses, it would be easy to figure out what you actually spent and what was not yours.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06db9794964fa3e19362d98a36016b50", "text": "You first compute your Ordinary Income (which includes Dividends, since they are taxed as OI), then you apply the standard tax bracket function to it, which is a piecewise linear function f() such that TAX = f(INCOME). It can be found at About.com. You can transform this into NET_INCOME = g(INCOME) = INCOME - TAX = INCOME - f(INCOME). Presumably g() is what you want to graph. I've actually graphed it before: Not too interesting, even on a LogLog scale. More interesting is the marginal tax rate, which is the derivative of f(), or the negative of the derivative of g(): ST (straight tax) shows what the marginal tax rate would look like if f() was just f(x)=kx or f(x)=kx+c, i.e. a straight/flat tax. The net tax rate (f(x)/x) actually gets more interesting if you also include [federal subsidies/deductions](Src: http://fbheron.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/fedassistance_ft.jpg) as a negative tax: Capital Gains are taxed separately and have (almost) nothing to do with this function. Corporate tax is not payed by you (although the burden of the tax [technical term] may fall upon you). Sorry I couldn't simplify; taxes are just complicated.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
f1f2b66c33b01356936eb4ae6b6304b4
US Dollar Index: a) where are long term charts; also b) is it available on Google Finance by any chance?
[ { "docid": "9a75ef672f18664183b4a36f7caf546b", "text": "a) the quick answer to your correlation is quantitative easing. basically the central bank has been devaluing the US dollar, making the prices of all goods increase (including stocks.) the stock market appear to have recovered from 2009 lows but its mainly an illusion. anyway the QE packages are very known when the correlation is not there, that means other meaningful things are happening such as better corporate earnings and real growth. b) the thinkorswim platform has charts for dollar futures, symbol /dx", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "432563b151d2e6afcfa8c7f9f577f54b", "text": "I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ffd7588e47bdcfbf842058ec577af8f", "text": "\"Answering this question is weird, because it is not really precise in what you mean. Do you want all stocks in the US? Do you want a selection of stocks according to parameters? Do you just want a cool looking graph? However, your possible misuse of the word derivative piqued my interest. Your reference to gold and silver seems to indicate that you do not know what a derivative actually is. Or what it would do in a portfolio. The straightforward way to \"\"see\"\" an efficient frontier is to do the following. For a set of stocks (in this case six \"\"randomly\"\" selected ones): library(quantmod) library(fPortfolio) library(PerformanceAnalytics) getSymbols(c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns &lt;- NULL tickerlist &lt;- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"frontier.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) plot(frontier, which = \"\"all\"\") dev.off() minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") Portfolio Weights: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Covariance Risk Budgets: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Target Returns and Risks: mean Cov CVaR VaR 0.0232 0.0354 0.0455 0.0360 https://imgur.com/QIxDdEI The minimum variance portfolio of these six assets has a mean return is 0.0232 and variance is 0.0360. AMZN does not get any weight in the portfolio. It kind of means that the other assets span it and it does not provide any additional diversification benefit. Let us add two ETFs that track gold and silver to the mix, and see how little difference it makes: getSymbols(c(\"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns &lt;- NULL tickerlist &lt;- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\", \"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"weights.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) weightsPlot(frontier) dev.off() # Optimal weights out &lt;- minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") wghts &lt;- getWeights(out) portret1 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret1 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret1)[,3] colnames(portret1) &lt;- \"\"Optimal portfolio\"\" # Equal weights wghts &lt;- rep(1/8, 8) portret2 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret2 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret2)[,3] colnames(portret2) &lt;- \"\"Equal weights portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_both.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret1, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.Drawdown(portret1, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/sBHGz7s Adding gold changes the minimum variance mean return to 0.0116 and the variance stays about the same 0.0332. You can see how the weights change at different return and variance profiles in the picture. The takeaway is that adding gold decreases the return but does not do a lot for the risk of the portfolio. You also notice that silver does not get included in the minimum variance efficient portfolio (and neither does AMZN). https://imgur.com/rXPbXau We can also compare the optimal weights to an equally weighted portfolio and see that the latter would have performed better but had much larger drawdowns. Which is because it has a higher volatility, which might be undesirable. --- Everything below here is false, but illustrative. So what about the derivative part? Let us assume you bought an out of the money call option with a strike of 50 on MSFT at the beginning of the time series and held it to the end. We need to decide on the the annualized cost-of-carry rate, the annualized rate of interest, the time to maturity is measured in years, the annualized volatility of the underlying security is proxied by the historical volatility. library(fOptions) monthprc &lt;- Ad(MSFT)[endpoints(MSFT, \"\"months\"\")] T &lt;- length(monthprc) # 60 months, 5 years vol &lt;- sd(returns$MSFT)*sqrt(12) # annualized volatility optprc &lt;- matrix(NA, 60, 1) for (t in 1:60) { s &lt;- as.numeric(monthprc[t]) optval &lt;- GBSOption(TypeFlag = \"\"c\"\", S = s, X = 50, Time = (T - t) / 12, r = 0.001, b = 0.001, sigma = vol) optprc[t] &lt;- optval@price } monthprc &lt;- cbind(monthprc, optprc) colnames(monthprc) &lt;- c(\"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"MSFTCall50\"\") MSFTCall50rets &lt;- monthlyReturn(monthprc[,2]) colnames(MSFTCall50rets) &lt;- \"\"MSFTCall50rets\"\" returns &lt;- merge(returns, MSFTCall50rets) wghts &lt;- rep(1/9, 9) portret3 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret3 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret3)[,3] colnames(portret3) &lt;- \"\"Equal weights derivative portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_deriv.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.CumReturns(portret3, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret3, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/SZ1xrYx Even though we have a massively profitable instrument in the derivative. The portfolio analysis does not include it because of the high volatility. However, if we just use equal weighting and essentially take a massive position in the out of the money call (which would not be possible in real life), we get huge drawdowns and volatility, but the returns are almost two fold. But nobody will sell you a five year call. Others can correct any mistakes or misunderstandings in the above. It hopefully gives a starting point. Read more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) The imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/LoBEY\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c755610386012c509020b65c42c3891", "text": "\"Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com. Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11. The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an \"\"Average Return\"\", which I was told was for a 3 year period. Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available. You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of. For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a \"\"Best of the Web\"\" site. Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them. Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention. For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it. Thanks, George\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee13d447ca63a0e4424994931d061598", "text": "https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009m.png &gt;The following charts will provide a sense of where the U.S. equity market currently stands. The first chart shows our margin-adjusted CAPE, which as noted above has a correlation of about -0.89 with actual subsequent market returns across U.S. market cycles since the 1920’s. https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009.htm It will turn, downside potential is historic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96ffe6a551593b9b69ec6a68d6a2175b", "text": "You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aeef25d59c01d9382647746f9d7cada", "text": "\"I would make this a comment but I am not allowed apparently. Unless your continent blows up, you'll never lost all your money. Google \"\"EUR USD\"\" if you want news stories or graphs on this topic. If you're rooting for your 10k USD (but not your neighbors), you want that graph to trend downward.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55f332da2bc6737a330b520c90586811", "text": "The portion of a stock movement not correlated with stocks in general is called Alpha. I don't know of any online tools to graph alpha. Keep in mind that a company like Apple is so huge right now that any properly weighted index will have to correlate with it to some degree.", "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": "3befa06aff1f9bdd4c44321420a6f7d0", "text": "Options - yes we can :) Options tickers on Yahoo! Finance will be displayed as per new options symbology announced by OCC. The basic parts of new option symbol are: Root symbol + Expiration Year(yy)+ Expiration Month(mm)+ Expiration Day(dd) + Call/Put Indicator (C or P) + Strike price Ex.: AAPL January 19 2013, Put 615 would be AAPL130119P00615000 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL130119P00615000&ql=1 Futures - yes as well (: Ex.: 6A.M12.E would be 6AM12.CME using Yahoo Finance symbology. (simple as that, try it out) Get your major futures symbols from here: http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/exchange.html?e=CME", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f8f4f0e86dfd43dd70b7d48f6ee9d1f", "text": "A number of places. First, fast and cheap, you can probably get this from EODData.com, as part of a historical index price download -- they have good customer service in my experience and will likely confirm it for you before you buy. Any number of other providers can get it for you too. Likely Capital IQ, Bloomberg, and other professional solutions. I checked a number of free sites, and Market Watch was the only that had a longer history than a few months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2011683a7282591b7487b02e7d336fa2", "text": "I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc791ff7f4a2e648915913f2f2bc62ae", "text": "Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D", "title": "" }, { "docid": "105d56c81f6e2fbc365e6571b8b8d301", "text": "you could try [FRED](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=HO7), or maybe try the CME and ICE's websites for some decent data.. haven't looked just suggestions - pretty sure the symbol for the Libor futures is EM, you could approximate from that so long as it's not a doctoral thesis", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5488cb152533b6023509b909b183eec", "text": "If you're interested in slower scale changes, one option is to use indexes that value a common commodity in different currencies such as the Big Mac Index. If a Big Mac costs more in AUD but stays the same in USD, then AUD have gone up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21f7f766f152e5ee0c687d0465e8f0be", "text": "\"It's required by law. 12 USC 1759 (b) requires that membership in a credit union be limited to one or more groups with a \"\"common bond\"\", or to people within a particular geographic area. For lots more gory details on how this is interpreted and enforced, you can read the manual given to credit unions by the National Credit Union Administration, which is their regulatory agency.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
0ff9f088c61cf828240406c45b93e1b3
Best personal finance strategy to control my balance
[ { "docid": "abd5282cdbc6b70ad70b329b15f6454e", "text": "The key to understanding where your money is going is to budget. Rather than tracking your spending after the fact, budgeting lets you decide up front what you want to spend your money on. This can be done with cash envelopes, on paper, or on Excel spreadsheets; however, in my opinion, the best, most flexible, and easiest way to do this is with budgeting software designed for this purpose. As I explained in another answer, when it comes to personal budgeting software, there are two different approaches: those in which you decide what to spend your money on before it is spent, and those that simply show you how your money was spent after it is gone. I recommend the first approach. Software designed to do this include YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar. My personal favorite is YNAB. You'll find lots of help, video tutorials, and even online classes with a live teacher on YNAB's website. Using one of these packages will help you manage spending, whether it is done electronically or with cash. When you pay for something with a credit card, you enter your purchase into the software, and the software adjusts your budget as if the money is already spent, even if you haven't technically paid for the purchase yet. As far as strategy goes, here is what I recommend: Get started on one of these, and set up your budget right away. Assign a category to every dollar in your account. Don't worry if it is not perfect. If you find later on that you don't have enough money in one of your categories, you can move money from another category if you need to. As you work with it, you'll get better at knowing how much money you need in each category. My other recommendation is this: Don't wait until the end of the month to download your transactions from the bank and fit everything into categories. Instead, enter your spending transactions into the software manually, every day, as you spend. This will do two things: first, you'll have the latest, up-to-date picture of where your accounts are in your software without having to guess. Second, it will help you stay on top of your spending. You'll be able to see early on if you are overspending in a particular category. YNAB has a mobile app that I use quite a bit, but if I don't get a chance to enter a purchase right when I spend it, I make sure to keep a receipt, and enter the transaction in that evening. It only takes a couple of minutes a day, and I always know how I stand financially.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0507b77c98c3fcf6da71fa48b8d2b9c8", "text": "My bank will let me download credit card transactions directly into a personal finance program, and by assigning categories to stores I can get at least a rough overview of that sidd of things, and then adjust categories/splits when needed. Ditto checks. Most of my spending is covered by those. Doesn't help with cash transactions, though; if I want to capture those accurately I need to save receipts. There are ocr products which claim to help capture those; haven't tried them. Currently, since my spending is fairly stable, I'm mostly leaving those as unknown; that wouldn't work for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccd5231b27144cc325ae0292bc69d661", "text": "\"I started storing and summing all my receipts, bills, etc. It has the advantage of letting me separate expenses by category, but it's messy and it takes a long time. It sounds from this like you are making your summaries far too detailed. Don't. Instead, start by painting with broad strokes. For example, if you spent $65.17 at the grocery store, don't bother splitting that amount into categories like toiletries, hygiene products, food, and snacks: just categorize it as \"\"grocery spending\"\" and move on to the next line on your account statement. Similarly, unless your finances are heavily reliant on cash, don't worry about categorizing each cash expense; rather, just categorize the withdrawal of cash as miscellaneous and don't spend time trying to figure out exactly where the money went after that. Because honestly, you probably spent it on something other than savings. Because really, when you are just starting out getting a handle on your spending, you don't need all the nitty-gritty details. What you need, rather, is an idea of where your money is going. Figure out half a dozen or so categories which make sense for you to categorize your spending into (you probably have some idea of where your money is going). These could be loans, cost of living (mortgage/rent, utilities, housing, home insurance, ...), groceries, transportation (car payments, fuel, vehicle taxes, ...), savings, and so on -- whatever fits your situation. Add a miscellaneous category for anything that doesn't neatly fit into one of the categories you thought of. Go back something like 3-4 months among your account statements, do a quick categorization for each line on your account statements into one of these categories, and then sum them up per category and per month. Calculate the monthly average for each category. That's your starting point: the budget you've been living by (intentionally or not). After that, you can decide how you want to allocate the money, and perhaps dig a bit more deeply into some specific category. Turns out you are spending a lot of money on transportation which you didn't expect? Look more closely at those line items and see if there's something you can cut. Are you spending more money at the grocery store than you thought? Then look more closely at that. And so on. Once you know where you are and where you want to be (such as for example bumping the savings category by $200 per month), you can adjust your budget to take you closer to your goals. Chances are you won't realistically be able to do an about-face turn on the spot, but you can try to reduce some discretionary category by, say, 10% each month, and transfer that into savings instead. That way, in 6-7 months, you have cut that category in half.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "a5ffad73cd2b4b8a5ba47181b82e005c", "text": "\"How about the new Mastercard \"\"In Control\"\" card http://www.pivotalpayments.com/ca/industry-news/mastercard-introduces-in-control-program-to-help-consumers-budget-800077802/ You can set budgets at your bank and go between getting alerts when you go over, or completely declined if you are out of money. There are going to be obvious loop holes and slack in the system, but this system seems like a pretty neat start. Combine this with a bank account that does bill pay and you might have something to work with.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f82e38896fe86d236bd8711b5d4a5471", "text": "\"&gt; Except that I check my balance 3 times a day and keep track not only where I'm at but also where i should be. I like numbers. Q.E.D. You're not \"\"balancing\"\" anything... hell, if you're \"\"checking your balance\"\" online 3x a day, you're not even \"\"remembering\"\" what you spent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "720391beff1d2c84391ee0a7328a2c1f", "text": "\"Oddly enough, I started to research the \"\"Bank on Yourself\"\" strategy today as well (even before I'd ran across this question!). I'd heard an ad on the radio for it the other day, and it caught my attention because they claimed that the strategy isn't prone to market fluctuations like the stock market. It seemed in their radio ad that their target market was people who had lost serious money in their 401k's. So I set about doing some research of my own. It seems to me that the website bankonyourself.com gives a very superficial overview of the strategy without truly ever getting to the meat of it. I begin having a few misgivings at the point that I realized I'd read through a decent chunk of their website and yet I still didn't have a clear idea of the mechanism behind it all. I become leery any time I have to commit myself to something before I can be given a full understanding of how it works. It's shady and reeks of someone trying to back you into a corner so they can bludgeon you with their sales pitch until you cry \"\"Mercy!\"\" and agree to their terms just to stop the pain (which I suspect is what happens when they send an agent out to talk to you). There were other red flags that stood out to me, but I don't feel like getting into them. Anyway, through the use of google I was able to find a thread on another forum that was a veritable wealth of knowledge with regard to the mechanism of \"\"Bank on Yourself\"\" how it works. Here is the link: Bank on Yourself/Infinite Banking... There are quite a few users in the thread who have excellent insights into how all of it works. After reading through a large portion of the thread, I came away realizing that this strategy isn't for me. However, it does appear to be a potential choice for certain people depending upon their situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "103149f9d033adf1cda71bb2ba4affe7", "text": "Don’t go crazy with your salary and try to live similar to your college lifestyle for a while. Max out tax deferred investments and any matching your company offers. Put the rest of your savings in passively managed index funds not a savings account at your bank. Buy furniture over a few months and find deals. Try to keep your total auto expense under 10% of gross monthly income and you’re housing expense under 20% of gross monthly income. After a few months you’ll figure out your other monthly expenses and how much you feel comfortable saving. You can also let your credit card company know you have this income and they may raise your CC limit. A higher limit means your utilization rate will be lower which will help your credit as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "293421cc8ae7e7d0518d6fa59d3d4f18", "text": "One approach is to control your budget more effectively. For example work out your essential living expenses things like food, rent and other bills you are committed to and compare this to your regular income. Then you can set up a regular automatic payment to a savings account so you limit the disposable income in your current account. If you keep a regular check on this balance it should make you feel like you have less 'spare' money and so less temptation to spend on impulse purchases. Similarly it may help to set a savings goal for something you really do want, even if this is itself a bit frivolous it will at least help you to discipline yourself. Equally it may be useful to set a fixed budget for luxuries, then you have a sense that when it's gone it's gone but you don't have to completely deny yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7776d8529615f03d3a1ff066204e2e5", "text": "I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts. I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close. I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds. That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99132ead7c0318b28479f3d0e3cb6555", "text": "A CD ladder is an ideal way to hold your emergency funds and eke out a few more percentage points of return. Buy CDs in denominations close to one month's expenses, and ladder 1 per month with 3, 6 or 12 month CDs (depending on your total cash allocation to emergency funds). By using a frequency that matches your available funds, in a best case scenario, you can perpetually roll over (or as your savings increase, extend to a longer frequency). If you have an emergency, you have a month's expenses in cash or cash coming in within a month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f50a77edeff46066dd58bbd93707a0f4", "text": "Here are the specific Vanguard index funds and ETF's I use to mimic Ray Dalio's all weather portfolio for my taxable investment savings. I invest into this with Vanguard personal investor and brokerage accounts. Here's a summary of the performance results from 2007 to today: 2007 is when the DBC commodity fund was created, so that's why my results are only tested back that far. I've tested the broader asset class as well and the results are similar, but I suggest doing that as well for yourself. I use portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest the results of my portfolio along with various asset classes, that's been tremendously useful. My opinionated advice would be to ignore the local investment advisor recommendations. Nobody will ever care more about your money than you, and their incentives are misaligned as Tony mentions in his book. Mutual funds were chosen over ETF's for the simplicity of auto-investment. Unfortunately I have to manually buy the ETF shares each month (DBC and GLD). I'm 29 and don't use this for retirement savings. My retirement is 100% VSMAX. I'll adjust this in 20 years or so to be more conservative. However, when I get close to age 45-50 I'm planning to shift into this allocation at a market high point. When I approach retirement, this is EXACTLY where I want to be. Let's say you had $2.7M in your retirement account on Oct 31, 2007 that was invested in 100% US Stocks. In Feb of 2009 your balance would be roughly $1.35M. If you wanted to retire in 2009 you most likely couldn't. If you had invested with this approach you're account would have dropped to $2.4M in Feb of 2009. Disclaimer: I'm not a financial planner or advisor, nor do I claim to be. I'm a software engineer and I've heavily researched this approach solely for my own benefit. I have absolutely no affiliation with any of the tools, organizations, or funds mentioned here and there's no possible way for me to profit or gain from this. I'm not recommending anyone use this, I'm merely providing an overview of how I choose to invest my own money. Take or leave it, that's up to you. The loss/gain incured from this is your responsibility, and I can't be held accountable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7e29383446f4f67dd080e3f8938a28", "text": "\"As others have said, doing a monthly budget is a great idea. I tried the tracking expenses method for years and it got me nowhere, I think for these reasons: If budgeting isn't your cup of tea, try the \"\"pay yourself first\"\" method. Here, as soon as you get a paycheck take some substantial portion immediately and use it to pay down debt, or put it in savings (if you have no debt). Doing this will force you to spend less money on impulse items, and force you to really watch your spending. If you take this option, be absolutely sure you don't have any open credit accounts, or you'll just use them to make up the difference when you find yourself broke in the middle of the month. The overall key here is to get yourself into a long term mind set. Always ask yourself things like \"\"Am I going to care that I didn't have this in 10 years? 5 years? 2 months? 2 days even? And ask yourself things like \"\"Would I perfer this now, or this later plus being 100% debt free, and not having to worry if I have a steady paycheck\"\". I think what finally kicked my butt and made me realize I needed a long term mind set was reading The Millionaire Next Door by Tom Stanley. It made me realize that the rich get rich by constantly thinking in the long term, and therefore being more frugal, not by \"\"leveraging\"\" debt on real estate or something like 90% of the other books out there tell you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "aedf2391fb10d1b8a89979464f555c0b", "text": "\"Easiest thing ever. In fact, 99% of people are loosing money. If you perform worse then 10% annually in cash (average over 5-10 years), then you better never even think about trading/investing. Most people are sitting at 0%..-5% annually. They win some, loose some, and are being outrun by inflation and commissions. In fact, fall of market is not a big deal, stock indexes are often jump back in a few months. If you rebalance properly, it is mitigated. Your much bigger enemy is inflation. If you think inflation is small, look at gold price over past 20 years. Some people, Winners at first, grow to +10%, get too relaxed and start to grow already lost position. That one loose trade eats 10% of their portfolio. Only there that people realize they should cut it off, when they already lost their profits. And they start again with +0%. This is hard thing to accept, but most of people are not made for that type of business. Even worse, they think \"\"if I had bigger budget, I would perform better\"\", which is kind of self-lie.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f6dbee2a64e74d7236cc6693d80ca1c", "text": "I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals. I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7f76f9460f0bf9659675302d6fb77fd", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, it sounds like the problem isn't the accessibility of your money, the problem is willpower. So, address that instead. How? Willpower is both a finite resource AND a resource that can be increased -- like muscle strength. Since willpower is finite, break down the problem into as many pieces as possible, then address only one of those pieces at a time. \"\"Be more sensible with my money\"\" is nebulous, vague, and large; there's no place to start. So break it apart: first thing is the one example in your question -- you go out on payday with friends/coworkers, intending to only buy a couple of beers (alcohol lowers willpower), and end up blowing through far more. So, what about making a rule to not go out on payday? Nice idea, but that might still be too hard to do -- if you have a habit of going out with them on payday, then this has become your community, and you will feel the loneliness of not going out with them, as well as the social pressure from them to do as you've always done. So, set up a different habit for that night, one that both involves the obligation of going there instead, and other people who will expect you to be there. Some examples would be a sport that happens to practice or compete on payday nights, or some charity that happens to need you at that time. Once you've broken that habit (and exulted in the resulting fattening of your wallet), look for other, similar leaks. I'm going to guess that all your money gets spent on going out to pubs (as opposed, say, to buying bric-a-brac you don't need). If so, then you need to face that you've adopted a pub-going culture, and that your community has shrunk to just those kind of people. It may seem like you have a lot of people in your life, but if all it takes to lose connection to all of them is to stop going to pubs, then you really don't. Your human connections, essential for an enjoyable life, are too fragile, too singly focused. So if that's the problem, branch out. Diversify the communities you're part of. I've already mentioned sport; church is another good one -- I mean a living church, the kind where the people are always doing stuff together and it's fun to go to, not the other kind where everyone sits in a pew for an hour a week and rushes the exits as soon as possible. Other possibilities are reaching out to neighbors or becoming politically involved. Hmmm... I started writing about willpower but I'm ending up at community. At your core, do you feel like if you didn't spend this way, that you wouldn't have any friends?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99eba4415aa6c54b1c570948f430d5de", "text": "Set up budget categories. Earmark your income as it is paid, for your budget categories. Pay your bills and expenses. For debts, pay the minimum on everything. There will be an amount left once everything is budgeted. That's the 'extra'. Then focus on, in order of priority, the following: So, when your emergency fund is up to an appropriate level (3-6 months of living expenses as a rule of thumb, adjusted according to your comfort level). Once you have your emergency fund started, budget at least enough toward your 401k to capture any matching offered by your employer. Then use the snowball plan to pay off your debts. (From what your post says, this does not apply to you, but you may have some small credit card debts taht were not discussed). Earmark the 'extra' for the smallest debt first. When that debt is paid, the 'extra' grows by the minimum payment of the smallest. Thus the snowball grows as you pay off debts. Once the debts are gone, reward yourself, within reason (and without going into debt). Now shift your extra into fully funding your retirement savings. Consult a financial advisor to help you plan how to distribute your retirement savings across the available retirement savings types. They can explain why it's good to have some of your retirement savings funded from after tax income. They can help you find the balance between pre- and post-tax funded accounts. Eventually, you may come to the point where you're putting the max allowed into your tax advantaged retirement accounts. At your age, this is a significant achievement. Anything left over after retirement savings is funded can be used for whatever you want. If you choose wealth building, it can lead to financial independence. The first two should be a one time thing. You can/should do more than one at a time. The fourth one is optional, and should not be considered until 1 and 2 are completed, and 3 is maxed out. What you achieve is up to you. Look up FIRE, or Financially independent, retire early. There are groups of folks striving for this. They share advice on frugal living and wealth building strategies. The goal is to save enough capital to live off the passive income of interest and dividends. Most of them seem to have pre-50 target ages. At your age and income, you could hit a pre-40 goal. But it takes commitment and a certain type of personality. Not for me but it might be for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a11258e0201b95e662802459335f1f8d", "text": "What is the best option to start with? and I am not sure about my goals right now but I do want to have a major retirement account without changing it for a long time That is a loaded question. Your goals should be set up first, else what is stopping you from playing the mega millions lottery to earn the retirement amount instantly. If you have the time and resources, you should try doing it yourself. It helps you learn and at a latter stage if you don't have the time to manage it yourself, you can find an adviser who does it for you. To find a good adviser or find a fund who/which can help you achieve your monetary goals you will need to understand the details, how it works and other stuff, behind it. When you are thrown terms at your face by somebody, you should be able to join the dots and get a picture for yourself. Many a rich men have lost their money to unscrupulous people i.e. Bernie Madoff. So knowing helps a lot and then you can ask questions or find for yourself to calm yourself i.e. ditch the fund or adviser, when you see red flags. It also makes you not to be too greedy, when somebody paints you a picture of great returns, because then your well oiled mind would start questioning the rationale behind such investments. Have a look at Warren Buffet. He is an investor and you can follow how he does his investing. It is simple but very difficult to follow. Investing through my bank I would prefer to stay away from them, because their main service is banking and not allowing people to trade. I would first compare the services provided by a bank to TD Ameritrade, or any firm providing trading services. The thing is, as you mentioned in the question, you have to go through a specific process of calling him to change your portfolio, which shouldn't be a condition. What might happen is, if he is getting some benefits out of the arrangement(get it clarified in the first place if you intend to go through them), from the side of the fund, he might try to dissuade you from doing so to protect his stream of income. And what if he is on a holiday or you cannot get hold of him. Secondly from your question, it seems you aren't that investing literate. So it is very easy to get you confused by jargon and making you do what he gets the maximum benefit out of it, rather than which benefits you more. I ain't saying he is doing so but that could be a possibility too, so you have consider that angle too. The pro is that setting up an account through them might be much easier than directly going to a provider. But the best point doing it yourself is, you will learn and there is nothing which tops that. You don't want somebody else managing your money, however knowledgeable they maybe i.e. Anthony Bolton.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
a8cf85ed472698b6d9ce47d515c6f949
Multi-user, non-US personal finance and budget software
[ { "docid": "2b21b7787891776d81772e462a27e786", "text": "\"My wife and I have been ridiculously happy with YNAB. It's not \"\"online,\"\" but syncs across our phones & computers using Dropbox. It supposedly supports different locales and currencies, but I have never needed to try that out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdc922e69b22a5f186fda3856065d017", "text": "I know exactly what you are talking about. You may like", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "18a46954b6c722f81097bece479933c9", "text": "I've been using Tick at work now for several months and have really enjoyed it. It's got a nice, simple interface with good time-budgeting and multi-user/project features. It can be used on several platforms, too (website, desktop widgets, and phone apps).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6e28aca217b83085a5143051ab9e18f", "text": "The best solution I've been able to find for this is MoneyWiz, where both are logged into the same sync account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f1bca174e10f914463e5c7ddcf1433e", "text": "\"Yes. The simplest option to track your spending over time is to familiarize yourself with the \"\"Reports\"\" menu on the toolbar. Take a look specifically at the \"\"Reports > Income/Expense > Income Statement\"\" report, which will sum up your income and spending over a time frame (defaults to the current year). In each report that you run, there is an \"\"Options\"\" button at the top of the screen. Open that and look on the \"\"General\"\" tab, you'll be able to set the time frame that the report displays (if you wanted to set it for the 2 week block since your last paycheck, for example). Other features you're going to want to familiarize yourself with are the Expense charts & statements, the \"\"Cash Flow\"\" report, and the \"\"Budgeting\"\" interface (which is relatively new), although there is a bit of a learning curve to using this last feature. Most of the good ideas when it comes to tracking your spending are independent of the software you're using, but can be augmented with a good financial tracking program. For example, in our household we have multiple credit cards which we pay in full every month. We selected our cards on specific benefits that they provide, such as one card which has a rotating category for cash back at certain business types. We keep that card set on restaurants and put all of our \"\"eating out\"\" expenses on that card. We have other cards for groceries, gas, etc. This makes it easy to see how much we've spent in a given category, and correlates well with the account structure in gnucash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c86cf4c13b5cedf554d0964b7b378467", "text": "\"I use \"\"Money Manager Ex\"\" which is a Windows application I use on PC to log my transactions and for simple statistic. They have two versions, simple standlone application and self-hosted web app.\"", "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": "b1030124273a3360c65ff22e029e7470", "text": "I've been budgeting with MS Money since 2004 and was pretty disappointed to hear it's being discontinued. Budgeting is actually a stress-relieving hobby for me, and I can be a bit of a control-freak when it comes to finances, so I decided to start early looking for a replacement rather than waiting until MS Money can no longer download transactions. Here are the pros and cons of the ones I've tried (updated 10/2010): You Need A Budget Pro (YNAB) - Based on the old envelopes system, YNAB has you allot money from each paycheck to a specific budget category (envelope). It encourages you to live on last money's income, and if you have trouble with overspending, that can be a great plan. Personally, I'm a big believer in the envelope concept, so that's the biggest pro I found. Also, it's a downloaded software, so once I've bought it (for about $50) it's mine, without forced upgrades as far as I've seen. The big con for me was that it does not automatically download transactions. I would have to sign on to each institution's website and manually download to the program. Also, coming from Money, I'm used to having features that YNAB doesn't offer, like the ability to store information about my accounts. Overall, it's forward-thinking and a good budgeting system, but will take some extra time to download transactions and isn't really a comprehensive management tool for all my financial needs. You can try it out with their free trial. Mint - This is a free online program. The free part was a major pro. It also looks pretty, if that's important to you. Updating is automatic, once you've got it all set up, so that's a pro. Mint's budgeting tools are so-so. Basically, you choose a category and tell it your limit. It yells at you (by text or email) when you cross the line, but doesn't seem to offer any other incentive to stay on budget. When I first looked at Mint, it did not connect with my credit union, but it currently connects to all my banks and all but one of my student loan institutions. Another recent improvement is that Mint now allows you to manually add transactions, including pending checks and cash transactions. The cons for me are that it does not give me a good end-of-the-month report, doesn't allow me to enter details of my paychecks, and doesn't give me any cash-flow forecasting. Overall, Mint is a good casual, retrospective, free online tool, but doesn't allow for much planning ahead. Mvelopes - Here's another online option, but this one is subscription-based. Again, we find the old envelopes system, which I think is smart, so that's a pro for me. It's online, so it downloads transactions automatically, but also allows you to manually add transactions, so another pro. The big con on this one is the cost. Depending on how you far ahead you choose to pay (quarterly, yearly or biannually), you're paying $7.60 to $12 per month. They do offer a free trial for 14 days (plus another 14 days offered when you try to cancel). Another con is that they don't provide meaningful reports. Overall, a good concept, but not worth the cost for me. Quicken - I hadn't tried Quicken earlier because they don't offer a free trial, but after the last few fell short, I landed with Quicken 2009. Pro for Quicken, as an MS Money user is that it is remarkably similar in format and options. The registers and reports are nearly identical. One frustration I'd had with Money was that it was ridiculously slow at start-up, and after a year or so of entering data, Quicken is dragging. Con for Quicken, again as an MS Money user, is that it's budgeting is not as detailed as I would like. Also, it does not download transactions smoothly now that my banks all ask security questions as part of sign-in. I have to sign in to my bank's website and manually download. Quicken 2011 is out now, but I haven't tried it yet. Hopefully they've solved the problem of security questions. Quicken 2011 promises an improved cash-flow forecast, which sounds promising, and was a feature of MS Money that I have very much missed. Haven't decided yet if it's worth the $50 to upgrade to 2011.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcf7b6129f6a8a9145f65dc426f9870e", "text": "PocketSmith is another tool you might like to consider. No personal banking details are required, but you can upload your transactions in a variety of formats. Pocketsmith is interesting because it really focus on your future cash flow, and the main feature of the interface is around having a calendar(s) where you easily enter one off or repetitive expenses/income. http://www.pocketsmith.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c4a0bcd6ec884cb4e38e9035f7e5ffb", "text": "I haven't used it in years, but look at GnuCash. From the site, one bullet point under Feature Highlights:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "457c5bf12f90218237dd69a0c2508da6", "text": "\"Moneydance is a commercial application that is cross-platform. Written in Java, they run and are supported on Windows, Mac and Linux. They integrate with many financial institutions and for those that it cannot, you can import a locally downloaded file. I have used it for several years on my Mac, but have no company affiliation. I'm not sure if by saying \"\"Unix\"\" software you meant FOSS of some kind, but good luck in any case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1bdb3370adf99f1ab0f40a9875ad800", "text": "I use http://moneydance.com/ it has Mac, Windows and Linux versions and works well for my needs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90b0557ba3649538e4ef1b972e18f484", "text": "Mint.com is a fantastic free personal finance software that can assist you with managing your money, planning budgets and setting financial goals. I've found the features to be more than adequate with keeping me informed of my financial situation. The advantage with Mint over Microsoft Money is that all of your debit/credit transactions are automatically imported and categorized (imperfectly but good enough). Mint is capable of handling bank accounts, credit card accounts, loans, and assets (such as cars, houses, etc). The downsides are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afae3b9d38616f166679f52fff990a33", "text": "I use GnuCash which I really like. However, I've never used any other personal finance software so I can't really compare. Before GnuCash, I used an Excel spreadsheet which works fine for very basic finances. Pros Cons", "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": "" }, { "docid": "9ebc43ac297c2c5d3bad28059236f170", "text": "Check the Financial section in this list of Open Source Software", "title": "" }, { "docid": "148237704e8e1e2cc3f9c189e917adfb", "text": "\"The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax: It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The \"\"Fair Tax Act of 2011\"\" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax. For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments. Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage. Luxury items would get far more expensive.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
a6e15d2d6f288cd201d87a5958fa6b73
Where to find LEAPS option quotes (full chain)? CBOE & Yahoo! Finance not working
[ { "docid": "c9e93eacddd5b462e5df20e20436b1f6", "text": "\"I'm familiar with and have traded U.S.-listed LEAPS and I've always used the CBOE quotes page you linked to. So, I too was surprised I couldn't find 3M (MMM) LEAPS quotes at that page, even after checking the \"\"List all options, LEAPS, Credit Options & Weeklys if avail.\"\" radio button. Used to work! Fortunately, I was able to get access to the full chain of option quotes from the CBOE's other quotes page: Go to the \"\"Quotes & Data\"\" menu, then select Delayed Quotes - NEW!  Here's how: I think the new interface is terrible: it's too many steps to get to the information desired. I preferred the all-in-one table of the Delayed Quotes Classic page, the one you linked to. As to why that classic page isn't yielding the full chain, I can only suggest it is a recently introduced bug (software defect). I certainly was able to get LEAPS quotes from that page before. On Yahoo! Finance option quotes: I don't know why their chain is incomplete – I can't see the logic, for instance, as to why MMM Jan 2012 60 calls are missing. I thought at first it may be lack of volume or open interest, but nope. Anyway, I don't trust Yahoo! to provide accurate, reliable quotes anyway, having seen too many errors and missing data in particular in the feed of Canadian stocks, which I also trade. I rely on the exchange's quotes, and my broker's real-time quotes. I check Yahoo! only for convenience sake, and when it actually matters I go to the other more reliable sources. For what it's worth, though, you can also get full chain option quotes at NASDAQ. See here for the 3M (MMM) example then click on the \"\"Jan 12\"\" link near the top. However, I would consider CBOE's quotes more definitive, since they are the options exchange.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "bb7297662734c48964eb593b905aee35", "text": "Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16fc45daadb1b77449a00539b723e29d", "text": "There are several Excel spreadsheets for downloading stock quotes (from Yahoo Finance), and historical exchange rates at http://investexcel.net/financial-web-services-kb", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ec6f6d74a9946f9c7b7f8f7132d8642", "text": "I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.) It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.) This is what I was thinking: * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage. I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money. By the way, thanks for your time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9a386b0ff469670b9d2e0c2463f5e34", "text": "You probably will not find to many places if any that give you live quotes on options because for the general public there is not that high of a demand. Most people do not even know what stock options are. You can get update on some sites like CNBC, but you will have refresh constantly to get the latest option prices. You can also try an online broker, most of whom will let you have access to their tools and quotes if you sign up for an account. Some require a deposit before you can access those tools and some don't. Personally, I use TD Ameritrade and I do not believe they require a deposit to use their tools, but don't quote me on that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f942f83af50827f1778ff784b6e6f832", "text": "You can also use ICS&lt;GO&gt; on Bloomberg and choose the right category (many subcategories, probably you'll start on home builders or something like that). If that doesn't work, press F1 twice and ask it to an analyst. I'm sure they have this info.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf4513d6e76ed2e63e58c4b9760adbe", "text": "On NASDAQ the ^ is used to denote other securities and / to denote warrents for the underlying company. Yahoo maybe using some other designators for same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbece9ee39b809d96739060cbb62da72", "text": "\"To other users save yourselves time, do not test any of the alternatives mentioned in this post. I have, to no avail. At the moment (nov/2013) Saxobank unfortunately seems to be the only broker who offers OTC (over-the counter) FX options trading to Retail Investors. In other words, it is the only alternative for those who are interested in trading non-exchange options (ie, only alternative to those interested in trading FX options with any date or strike, rather than only one date per month and strikes every 50 pips only). I say \"\"unfortunately\"\" because competition is good, Saxo options spreads are a rip off, and their platform extremely clunky. But it is what it is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f824112e5846e465882fb442b9ec6dd2", "text": "\"As an exercise, I want to give this a shot. I'm not involved in a firm that cares about liquidity so all this stuff is outside my purview. As I understand it, it goes something like this: buy side fund puts an order to the market as a whole (all or most possibly exchanges). HFTs see that order hit the first exchange but have connectivity to exchanges further down the pipe that is faster than the buy side fund. They immediately send their own order in, which reaches exchanges and executes before the buy side fund's order can. They immediately put up an ask, and buy side fund's order hits that ask and is filled (I guess I'm assuming the order was a market order from the beginning). This is in effect the HFT front running the buy side fund. Is this accurate? Even if true, whether I have a genuine issue with this... I'm not sure. Has anyone on the \"\"pro-HFT\"\" side written a solid rebuttal to Lewis and Katsuyama that has solid research behind it?\"", "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": "b1e05f0c1f8a91df35f4a20898dda67e", "text": "Shorts are difficult because you have to find someone to lend the stock to you. In contrast, put options don't require that. They also have some nice properties like you're only out the contract price. The options chain for BSFT will give you an idea of where the market is. Keep in mind that BSFT only IPO'd last year and announced blowout earnings recently. Make sure the P:E you're looking at is using recent earnings reports!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf5c0a75b1da766e7e89a48af1e5c82a", "text": "\"First, your question contains a couple of false premises: Options in the U.S. do not trade on the NYSE, which is a stock exchange. You must have been looking at a listing from an options exchange. There are a handful of options exchanges in the U.S., and while two of these have \"\"NYSE\"\" in the name, referring to \"\"NYSE\"\" by itself still refers to the stock exchange. Companies typically don't decide themselves whether options will trade for their stock. The exchange and other market participants (market makers) decide whether to create a market for them. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) is also a stock exchange. It doesn't list any options. If you want to see Canadian-listed options on equities, you're looking in the wrong place. Next, yes, RY does have listed options in Canada. Here are some. Did you know about the Montreal Exchange (MX)? The MX is part of the TMX Group, which owns both the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and the Montreal Exchange. You'll find lots of Canadian equity and index options trading at the MX. If you have an options trading account with a decent Canadian broker, you should have access to trade options at the MX. Finally, even considering the existence of the MX, you'll still find that a lot of Canadian companies don't have any options listed. Simply: smaller and/or less liquid stocks don't have enough demand for options, so the options exchange & market makers don't offer any. It isn't cost-effective for them to create a market where there will be very few participants.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fafc030d5c412570bda63917983a3e00", "text": "\"Because an equity option can be constructed at essentially any price by two willing counterparties on an exchange, there are not enough ISINs to represent the entire (i.e. infinite) option chain for even a single stock on a single expiration date. As a result, ISINs are not generated for each individual possible options contract. Instead the ISIN is used only to refer to the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol, and a separate formula is used to refer to the specific option contract for that symbol: So that code you pasted is not an ISIN but rather the standard US equity option naming scheme that you need to provide in addition to the ISIN when talking to your broker. Note that ISINs and formulas for referring to option contracts in other countries can behave quite differently. Also, there are many countries and markets that don't need ISINs because the products in question only exist on a single exchange. In those cases the exchange is pretty much free to make up whatever ID scheme it wants. P.S. Now I'm curious how option chains are identified for strike prices above $99,999. I looked up the only stock I can think of that trades above that price (BRK.A), but it doesn't seem to have an option chain (or at least Google doesn't show it) ...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e43c9ee414d6a7a2bde3ec4186fd12a6", "text": "you can try CME DataSuite. Your broker gives you real time options quotes. If you do not have one you can open a scottrade account with just $500 deposit. When I moved my money from scottrade to ameritrade they did not close my account even till this day I can access my scottrade account and see real time quotes and the same research they offered me before. You can try withdrawing your deposit and see if it stays open like mine did.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7978a163ea6fbead1bd037bcc1a14902", "text": "I also searched for some time before discovering Market Archive, which AFAIK is the most affordable option that basically gives you a massive multi-GB dump of data. I needed sufficient data to build a model and didn't want to work through an API or have to hand-pick the securities to train from. After trying to do this on my own by scraping Yahoo and using the various known tools, I decided my time was better spent not dealing with rate-limiting issues and parsing quirks and whatnot, so I just subscribed to Market Archive (they update the data daily).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "042dc9b3850f1e7673993a71b0c8770b", "text": "I think that he means that gold is debt the same way that money is debt, because gold for the longest time literally was money. Yes it is also a commodity, but it and silver were the only commodity universally accepted in exchange for promissory notes. There was no apple reserve, shoe reserve or deer reserve as in OP's explanation, that the town priest held on to in which to make those notes credible for tender around town. So basically everyone decided that instead of trading a bushel for apples for some deer meat, they decided they would trade the apples for gold, then they would trade that gold for the deer meat. They used the gold because they knew it was a real, tangible thing that was safely tucked away. No bad deer season or bad harvest would affect the actual gold itself, which is why it was used as the middleman in the transaction.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
87e505fb846a80d273fe691b7010f403
What is the preferred way to finance home improvements when preparing to sell your house?
[ { "docid": "e75c40eb45ca97f6bf56c0e96ce36708", "text": "You should look into a home equity line of credit: A home equity line of credit (often called HELOC and pronounced HEE-lock) is a loan in which the lender agrees to lend a maximum amount within an agreed period (called a term), where the collateral is the borrower's equity in his/her house. Because a home often is a consumer's most valuable asset, many homeowners use home equity credit lines only for major items, such as education, home improvements, or medical bills, and choose not to use them for day-to-day expenses.", "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": "ac054242bf14bcce4a6bea69a91dd5d5", "text": "sheegaon's reply looks fine to me, a HELOC can usually be set up for a minimal ($50?) fee, and is currently a pretty low rate, mine is 2.5%. If this doesn't appeal to you, my other suggestion is a 401(k) loan. While this is usually a last resort and 'not' recommended, a short term use may make sense. The rate is low, and you can pay in back in full after moving into the new house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc3b63c81f1b304d930f8b0957c62695", "text": "In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end. This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "636684b6afa429ed7bc649f9c17b7f0d", "text": "You could take on more work. Pizza delivery, lawn work, babysitting, housecleaning, etc. None of those are much fun, but all are better than opening a credit card bill.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "666d4e69434731a9ded729f1abad59a5", "text": "\"I encourage you to think of this home purchase decision as a chance to buy into a community that you want your children to grow up in. Try to find a place where you will be happy for the next 20 years, not just the next 2 or 7 years. In your situation, option 1 seems like a bad idea. It will create an obstacle to having children, instead of establishing a place for them to grow up in. Option 2 is close to \"\"buying a house on a layaway plan\"\". It offers the most financial flexibility. It also could result in the best long-term outcome, because you will buy in an established area, and you will know exactly what quality house you will have. But you and your fiancé need to ask yourselves some hard questions: Are you willing to put up with the mess and hassles of remodelling? Are you good at designing such projects? Can you afford to pay for the projects as they occur? Or if you need to finance them, can you get a HELOC to cover them? Especially if you and your fiancé do much of the work yourselves, break down the projects into small enough pieces that you can quickly finish off whatever you are working on at the time, and be happy living in the resulting space. You do not want to be nagging your husband about an unfinished project \"\"forever\"\" -- or silently resenting that a project never got wrapped up. I posted some suggestions for incrementally finishing a basement on the Home Improvement Stack Exchange. If you are up to the job of option 2, it is less risky than option 3. Option 3 has several risks: You don't know what sort of people will live in the neighborhood 5 - 20 years from now. Will the homes be owner-occupied? Or rentals? Will your neighbors care about raising children well? Or will lots of kids grow up in broken homes? Will the schools be good? Disappointing? Or dangerous? Whereas in an established neighborhood, you can see what the neighborhood is currently like, and how it has been changing. Unless you custom-build (or remodel), you don't control the quality of the construction. Some neighborhoods built by Pulte in the last 10 years were riddled with construction defects. You will be paying up-front for features you don't need yet. You might never need some of them. And some of them might interfere with what you realize later on might be better. In stable markets, new homes (especially ones with lots of \"\"upgrades\"\") often decline in value during the first few years. This is because part of the value is in the \"\"newness\"\" and being \"\"up-to-date\"\" with the latest fads. This part of the value wears off over time. Are the homes \"\"at the edge of town\"\" already within reasonable walking distance of parks, schools, church, grocery stores, et cetera? Might the commute from the \"\"edge of town\"\" to work get worse over the next 5 - 20 years?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29b875c24b781f5c8df7877d42041bc0", "text": "Unless u borrow for a house but just get a financial advisor - i highly recommend the co. I work for. Pm me if u want details though it sounds like u may go the diy route which is fine but 9 out if 10 times it takes nonprofessionals longer. I deal with clients and advisors who do this all the time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8394b41dc5e16d17c616139c687e014c", "text": "If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account. Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable. One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly. The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property. I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero). Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting. Run the numbers. Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer. It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation. Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side. Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting. Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side). Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area. Assuming that the numbers add up to buying: buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "318b176230b8586dd9fc2cab38336566", "text": "tl;dr: when everything is going great, it's not really a problem. It's when things change that it's a problem. Finally, home loans are extended over extremely long periods (i.e. 15 or 30 years), making any fluctuations in their value short-lived - even less reason to be obsessed over their current value relative to the loan. Your post is based on the assumption that you never move. In that case, you are correct - being underwater on a mortgage is not a problem. The market value of your house matters little, except if you sell it or it gets reassessed. The primary problem arises if you want to sell. There are a variety of reasons you might be required to move: In all of these scenarios it is a major problem if you cannot sell. Your options generally are: In the first option, you will destroy your credit. This may or may not be a problem. The second is a major inconvenience. The third is ideal, but often people in this situation have money related problems. Student loans can deferred if needed. Mortgages cannot. A car is more likely to be a lower payment as well as a lower amount underwater. Generally, the problem comes when people buy a mortgage assuming certain things - whether that's appreciation, income stability/growth, etc. When these change they run into these problems and that is exactly a moment where being underwater is a problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a12d5a105747afa120837f2fee77ef", "text": "Yes, banks still offer combo loans, but it is going to depend on the appraised value of your home. Typically lenders will allow you to finance up to 80% loan to value on the first mortgage (conforming loan amount) and 95% combined loan to value on a HELOC. I would start by checking with your local credit union or bank branch. They have more competitive rates and can be more flexible with loan amount and appraised value guidelines.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe638c47505fa844419fd4a4523d8fb8", "text": "\"A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the \"\"renter\"\" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the \"\"landlord,\"\" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a \"\"lot\"\" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your \"\"rent\"\" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have \"\"portable equity\"\" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will \"\"get lucky\"\" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because \"\"sky rockets\"\" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b11a00537c257f650ed6a54ae8d0c128", "text": "I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f759cb68f6fdff6992be59ef93cb90f", "text": "From a slightly different perspective, in my experience of buying a house you will find some unexpected costs due repairs that need to be made which were overlooked during the home inspection etc. You will need some financial cushion to fall back onto for these unexpected costs so for that reason alone I'd try to pay off as much of the credit card debt as I can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "049447e698bc3a74b9f5938b8d8f921e", "text": "No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47b373d19df329d35739cecaa6f2f076", "text": "The buyer discloses the financing arrangements to the seller because it makes his offer more attractive. When a seller receives and accepts an offer, the deal does not usually close until 30 to 60 days later. If the buyer cannot come up with the money by closing, the deal falls apart. This is a risk for the seller. When a seller is considering whether or not to accept an offer, it is helpful to know the likelihood that the buyer can actually obtain the amount of cash in the offer by the closing date. If the buyer can't acquire the funding, the offer isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The amount of the down payment vs. the amount of financing is also relevant to the seller. Let me give you a real-world example that happened to me once when I was selling a house. The buyer was doing a no-money-down mortgage and had no money for a down payment. He was even borrowing the closing costs. We accepted the offer, but when the bank did the appraisal, it was short of the purchase price. For most home sales, this would not be a problem, as long as the appraisal was more than the amount borrowed. But in this case, because the amount borrowed was more than the appraisal, the bank had a problem. The deal was at risk, and in order to continue either the buyer had to find some money somewhere (which he couldn't), or we had to lower the price to save the deal. Certainly, accepting the offer from a buyer with no cash to bring to the table was a risk. (In our case, we got lucky. We found some errors that were made in the appraisal, and got it redone.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a92073afad23a27fb936bf7bdc9d0f55", "text": "Whenever you put less than 20% down, you are usually required to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) to protect the lender in case you default on your loan. You pay this until you reach 20% equity in your home. Check out an amortization calculator to see how long that would take you. Most schedules have you paying more interest at the start of your loan and less principal. PMI gets you nothing - no interest or principal paid - it's throwing money away in a very real sense (more in this answer). Still, if you want to do it, make sure to add PMI to the cost per month. It is also possible to get two mortgages, one for your 20% down payment and one for the 80%, and avoid PMI. Lenders are fairly cautious about doing that right now given the housing crash, but you may be able to find one who will let you do the two mortgages. This will raise your monthly payment in its own way, of course. Also remember to factor in the costs of home ownership into your calculations. Check the county or city website to figure out the property tax on that home, divide by twelve, and add that number to your payment. Estimate your homeowners insurance (of course you get to drop renters insurance, so make sure to calculate that on the renting side of the costs) and divide the yearly cost by 12 and add that in. Most importantly, add 1-2% of the value of the house yearly for maintenance and repair costs to your budget. All those costs are going to eat away at your 3-400 a little bit. So you've got to save about $70 a month towards repairs, etc. for the case of every 10-50 years when you need a new roof and so on. Many experts suggest having the maintenance money in savings on top of your emergency fund from day one of ownership in case your water heater suddenly dies or your roof starts leaking. Make sure you've also estimated closing costs on this house, or that the seller will pay your costs. Otherwise you loose part of that from your down payment or other savings. Once you add up all those numbers you can figure out if buying is a good proposition. With the plan to stay put for five years, it sounds like it truly might be. I'm not arguing against it, just laying out all the factors for you. The NYT Rent Versus Buy calculator lays out most of these items in terms of renting or buying, and might help you make that decision. EDIT: As Tim noted in the comments below, real monthly cost should take into account deductions from mortgage interest and property tax paid. This calculator can help you figure that out. This question will be one to watch for answers on how to calculate cost and return on home buying, with the answer by mbhunter being an important qualification", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c88ee364042d1c14d29ca70d01b5b03e", "text": "\"If I have a house that its market value went from $100k to $140k can I get HELOC $40K? Maybe - the amount that you can borrow depends on the market value of the house, so if you already have $100k borrowed against it, it will be tough to borrow another $40k without paying a higher interest rate, since there is a real risk that the value will decrease and you will be underwater. Can I again ask for HELOC after I finish the renovation in order to do more renovation and maybe try to end up renovating the house so its value raises up to $500k? I doubt you can just \"\"renovate\"\" a house and increase its market value from $140k to $500K. Much of a house's value is determined by its location, and you can quickly outgrow a neighborhood. If you put $360k in improvements in a neighborhood where other homes are selling for $140k you will not realize nearly that amount in actual market value. People that buy $500k houses generally want to be in an area where other homes are worth around the same amount. If you want to to a major renovation (such as an addition) I would instead shop around for a Home Improvement Loan. The main difference is that you can use the expected value of the house after improvements to determine the loan balance, instead of using the current value. Once the renovations are complete, you roll it and the existing mortgage into a new mortgage, which will likely be cheaper than a mortgage + HELOC. The problem is that the cost of the improvements is generally more than the increase in market value. It also helps you make a wise decision, versus taking out a $40k HELOC and spending it all on renovations, only to find out that the increase in market value is only $10k and you're now underwater. So in your case, talk to a contractor to plan out what you want to do, which will tell you how much it will cost. Then talk to a realtor to determine what the market value with those improvements will be, which will tell you how much you can borrow. It's highly likely that you will need to pay some out-of-pocket to make up the difference, but it depends on what the improvements are and what comparable homes sell for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3edf31495dba5679c752f641cffc948", "text": "\"There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider \"\"nice\"\" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b174397e769644cf9b5fe820748fef34", "text": "Using cash to purchase a home allows you access to certain deals that mortgage buyers cannot take advantage of. These are typically distressed properties and need to be moved off the books quickly. Think of things like foreclosures and auctions. This does not mean that it gives you an advantage with every house on the market. While you may be able to close quickly, with cash, some buyers may choose to wait for the (presumably) higher offers of mortgage buyers. There are complications to purchasing in cash then mortgaging to replace that cash. Namely, how was that cash invested? If one were in mutual funds or stocks, with the money, one will have to pay capital gains tax on any profit. If those investments increase in value, during the time the money is tied up, what do you do then? Do you buy at the higher value or hold it back and dollar cost average it in?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92f0b60388d535a8b24ec5ee5eac7417", "text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
ae32c26ff3c0992a8f22a2d3b6cd15a5
How to handle Client Deposits in Xero (or any finance software, really)
[ { "docid": "4a3357c6b83be6ff170ecea33ce8a78c", "text": "I haven't worked with Xero before, but can't you just set it up as accounts payable? Put in an accounts payable for the contract. When the client makes a payment, the accounts payable goes down and the cash goes up.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "5b8225a226cca95fffba690e478dac98", "text": "\"Xero and WaveAccounting can make things easy, but they also have their limitations. I've used both for short periods of time but found both of them to be lacking. While the \"\"ease\"\" is appealing, the ability to drill into the details and get good reports is the downfall of both of these accounting systems. QuickBooks may seem like the easy answer here, but it really is the best for getting the power you want without getting too complicated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef3aeab66bcdc9f0fea169a0f2397abc", "text": "This happens to my dad all the time. He requires a deposit up front, but sometimes he'll let people slide without a deposit, or they refuse to pay the balance or something. After he has called and harrassed them about it, he boxes up the files of people that don't pay and hands it off to a lawyer. He has a deal worked out where he provides the lawyer with all the paperwork and the lawyer gets to keep 20% of whatever he can collect. The rest is just written off. The key thing is determining how much time and money you want to sink trying to get that money back. You don't know the likelihood of actually collecting that money, and every hour you spend on it is an hour you could spend generating more business", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ccddb1e176abf05c02c2da0e894e985", "text": "\"Let's just focus on the \"\"why would a bank need to accept deposits from private clients part\"\" and forget the central bank for a moment. I'm a guy. I have a wife and two kids. They have this pesky habit of wanting to buy stuff. When I get paid, I could just get a check, cash it, stuff it under a mattress, and pull it out when I need it. Hey that worked for a long time didn't it? But sometimes it's nice to write checks. (Just kidding, that's so gauche...) I use my debit card. I use my credit cards, but they need to be paid somehow. My light and phone bills need to be paid too. If only there were someone out there who could facilitate this transfer of money between me, the private client and the merchants I'm forced to spend my money at. Now some of those merchants have plans. Light bills I can pay at my grocer if I choose. But most of the other's don't. Luckily I have a bank that's willing to do this, for a fee. So basically they do it because there's a void in the market if they don't. I don't know if it's true what they say about supply creating its own demand, but it certainly is true that demand creates supply!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4767150d12ae946f266ade3beae6a7b0", "text": "You could keep an eye on BankSimple perhaps? I think it looks interesting at least... too bad I don't live in the US... They are planning to create an API where you can do everything you can do normally. So when that is released you could probably create your own command-line interface :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b56254525ee1a4d3bd61ecf5a539da", "text": "Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80a85c95c7462ad01c4b710df507a311", "text": "\"Hello! I am working on a project where I am trying to determine the profit made by a vendor if they hold our funds for 5 days in order to collect the interest on those funds during that period before paying a third party. Currently I am doing \"\"Amount x(Fed Funds Rate/365)x5\"\" but my output seems too low. Any advice?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bebaa6b3cce1a7612b581d6cba1a3810", "text": "MoneyDashboard or XeroPersonal are similar sites to Mint.com MoneyDashboard is planning on releasing an Android App XeroPersonal is also in development of an Android App For more details about the differences between the two apps, see this Web App question", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caf9996540ad9416b6f19f1b62ae2743", "text": "\"Short answer - matching your firms stock record or box to the records of a depository or fund family. Any differences are referred to as \"\"breaks\"\" and need to be resolved promptly otherwise action like covering or moving to suspsense are required. There are rules surrounding suspense, that may be valuable reading. Let me know if you have any specifics or want more detail. I made a few assumptions but that is the broadest view of a firms asset reconciliation (FINRA passed some recent rules that take this even deeper into \"\"firm\"\" accounts).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "573e48e9b9d4cbbfa1dee18393f88dd7", "text": "The best way is for X to work as Independent consultant fro c.com from India by raising monthly invoices for the work done. This will avoid the complications and paperwork associated by registering a LLC in US by XF and then employing X as independent consultant in India. X may need to fill out W8-BEN forms so that there is no withholding in US Edit: Independent consultant means without having to register any legal entity either in India or in US. There are no legal regulations in US or in India to hire an independent contractor / consultant. There maybe internal policy of C.com not to have independent consultants. Payments can be made via transfer to Bank account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca3869dabd29a013aa9458ceadfec2c0", "text": "My answer is with respect to the United States. I have no idea about India's regulatory environment. You are opening yourself up to massive liabilities and problems if you deposit their money in your account. I managed investment accounts as a private investment advisor for years (those with less than 15 clients were not required to register) until Dodd-Frank changed the rules. Thus you would have to register as an advisor, probably needing to take the series 65 exam (or qualifying some other way, e.g. getting your CFP/CFA/etc...). I used a discount broker/dealer (Scottrade) as the custodian. Here's how it works: Each client's account was their own account, and I had a master account that allowed me to bill their accounts and manage them. They signed paperwork making me the advisor on their account. I had very little accounting to handle (aside from tracking basis for taxed accounts). If you take custody of the money, you'll have regulatory obligations. There are always lots of stories in the financial advisor trade publications about advisors who go to jail for screwing their clients. The most common factor: they took custody of the assets. I understand why you want a single account - you want to ensure that each client gets the same results, right? Does each client want the same results? Certainly the tax situation for each is different, yes? Perhaps one has gains and wants to take losses in one year, and the other doesn't. If their accounts are managed separately, one can take losses while the other realizes gains to offset other losses. Financial advisors offer these kinds of accounts as Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs). The advisors on these kinds of accounts are mutual funds managers, and they try to match a target portfolio, but they can do things like realize gains or losses for clients if their tax situation would prefer it. You certainly can't let them put retirement accounts into your single account unless the IRS has you on their list of acceptable custodians. I suggest that you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the regulatory environment that you want to operate under. Then, after examining the pros and cons, you should decide which route you want to take. I think the most direct and feasible route is to pass the Series 65, register as an investment advisor, and find a custodian who will let you manage the assets as the advisor on the account. Real estate is another matter, you should talk to an attorney, not some random guy on the internet (even if he has an MBA and a BS in Real Estate, which I do). This is very much a state law thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34680985779d836f69029cf7538223bf", "text": "\"My wife and I are paid every two weeks. I go on line see the exact deposit, add it to register, and see what checks cleared. In effect, I reconcile twice per month, and the statement can't be different that what their system tells me. Since the online site shows \"\"last statement balance\"\" I feel there's no need to bother with the paper, nothing left to reconcile.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9781524bf267c26ed2f913336063da22", "text": "It is possible that they only do the hold on the first deposit from a given source. It is probably worth asking if they intend to do the hold on every paycheck or just the first one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ddf5935ce37f66c96defd0182a0c28d", "text": "\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10d9f9670fe70075b14cc479478ba1a2", "text": "No, GnuCash doesn't specifically provide a partner cash basis report/function. However, GnuCash reports are fairly easy to write. If the data was readily available in your accounts it shouldn't be too hard to create a cash basis report. The account setup is so flexible, you might actually be able to create accounts for each partner, and, using standard dual-entry accounting, always debit and credit these accounts so the actual cash basis of each partner is shown and updated with every transaction. I used GnuCash for many years to manage my personal finances and those of my business (sole proprietorship). It really shines for data integrity (I never lost data), customer management (decent UI for managing multiple clients and business partners) and customer invoice generation (they look pretty). I found the user interface ugly and cumbersome. GnuCash doesn't integrate cleanly with banks in the US. It's possible to import data, but the process is very clunky and error-prone. Apparently you can make bank transactions right from GnuCash if you live in Europe. Another very important limitation of GnuCash to be aware of: only one user at a time. Period. If this is important to you, don't use GnuCash. To really use GnuCash effectively, you probably have to be an actual accountant. I studied dual-entry accounting a bit while using GnuCash. Dual-entry accounting in GnuCash is a pain in the butt. Accurately recording certain types of transactions (like stock buys/sells) requires fiddling with complicated split transactions. I agree with Mariette: hire a pro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "482a8447ca780fd0d73b3d7050add5e0", "text": "\"If you just had one expense once a year of $1200, you would put in $100 a month. The average balance is going to be $600 in that case - the 0 and $1200 months average to $600, as do the $100 and $1100, the $200 and $1000, and so on. If you had one expense twice a year of $600 and put in $100 per month it will average to $300. You have a mix of 3/6/12 months - does 8 months seem reasonable as an \"\"average\"\" frequency? If so, there should be about a 4 month slush all the time. Now instead of one expense averaged over 12 months, imagine 12 accounts, each needing $100 a month. If you started at zero, you would put in $1200 the first month and immediately spend it. One account would go from +100 (its share of what you put in) to -1100 while the rest are all at +100. Overall your balance would be zero. Then the next month you would again deposit 1200 and spend 1200, bringing one account to -1000, one to -1100, and the rest to +200. You average to zero actually on deposit because some of the \"\"accounts\"\" have negative balances and some have positive. But aren't doing that. You \"\"caught up\"\" the months you were behind. So it would be like putting in $1200 for the first account, $1100 for the second, $1000 for the third and so on - a total of $7800. Then you take out $1200 and go down to 6600. The next month you put in $1200 and take out $1200 but you will always have that $6600 amount in there. All of the accounts will have positive balances - averaging $550 in this example.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
8ac569f2316597fe2384028825ff2ba9
Car finance, APR rates and per week in adverts; help understanding them
[ { "docid": "9269ac9dbe2b303176fc7b1fd4142849", "text": "Easier to copy paste than type this out. Credit: www.financeformulas.net Note that the present value would be the initial loan amount, which is likely the sale price you noted minus a down payment. The loan payment formula is used to calculate the payments on a loan. The formula used to calculate loan payments is exactly the same as the formula used to calculate payments on an ordinary annuity. A loan, by definition, is an annuity, in that it consists of a series of future periodic payments. The PV, or present value, portion of the loan payment formula uses the original loan amount. The original loan amount is essentially the present value of the future payments on the loan, much like the present value of an annuity. It is important to keep the rate per period and number of periods consistent with one another in the formula. If the loan payments are made monthly, then the rate per period needs to be adjusted to the monthly rate and the number of periods would be the number of months on the loan. If payments are quarterly, the terms of the loan payment formula would be adjusted accordingly. I like to let loan calculators do the heavy lifting for me. This particular calculator lets you choose a weekly pay back scheme. http://www.calculator.net/loan-calculator.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c5f7796e8581ad364cb3aa2a495ea88", "text": "\"Taking the last case first, this works out exactly. (Note the Bank of England interest rate has nothing to do with the calculation.) The standard loan formula for an ordinary annuity can be used (as described by BobbyScon), but the periodic interest rate has to be calculated from an effective APR, not a nominal rate. For details, see APR in the EU and UK, where the definition is only valid for effective APR, as shown below. 2003 BMW 325i £7477 TYPICAL APR 12.9% 60 monthly payments £167.05 How does this work? See the section Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity. The payment formula is derived from the sum of the payments, each discounted to present value. I.e. The example relates to the EU APR definition like so. Next, the second case doesn't make much sense (unless there is a downpayment). 2004 HONDA CIVIC 1.6 i-VTEC SE 5 door Hatchback £6,999 £113.15 per month \"\"At APR 9.9% [as quoted in advert], 58 monthly payments\"\" 58 monthly payments at 9.9% only amount to £5248.75 which is £1750.25 less than the price of the car. Finally, the first case is approximate. 2005 TOYOTA COROLLA 1.4 VVTi 5 door hatchback £7195 From £38 per week \"\"16.1% APR typical, a 60 month payment, 260 weekly payments\"\" A weekly payment of £38 would imply an APR of 14.3%.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "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": "5d454d859d8244653ded9620da5100d1", "text": "Money factor is a term coined by leasing companies to make car leasing that much more convoluted. It's basically a decimal value that you multiply by 2400 in order to arrive at your actual annual percentage rate or interest rate. Here's a really good article detailing how you can calculate your interest rate based on other criteria in your leasing contract, because most of the time you won't even be given money factor on your leasing contract", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54df40bf61e056d37576ccc99111fa4c", "text": "So many answers here are missing the mark. I have a $100k mortgage--because that isn't paid off, I can't buy a car? That's really misguided logic. You have a reasonably large amount of college debt and didn't mention any other debt-- It's a really big deal what kind of debt this is. Is it unsecured debt through a private lender? Is it a federal loan from the Department of Education? Let's assume the worst possible (reasonable) situation. You lose your job and spend the next year plus looking for work. This is the boat numerous people out of college are in (far far far FAR more than the unemployment rates indicate). Federal loans have somewhat reasonable (indentured servitude, but I digress) repayment strategies; you can base the payment on your current income through income-based and income-continent repayment plans. If you're through a private lender, they still expect payment. In both cases--because the US hit students with ridiculous lending practices, your interest rates are likely 5-10% or even higher. Given your take-home income is quite large and I don't know exactly the cost of living where you live--you have to make some reasonable decisions. You can afford a car note for basically any car you want. What's the worst that happens if you can't afford the car? They take it back. If you can afford to feed yourself, house yourself, pay your other monthly bills...you make so much more than the median income in the US that I really don't see any issues. What you should do is write out all your monthly costs and figure out how much unallocated money you have, but I'd imagine you have enough money coming in to finance any reasonable new or used car. Keep in mind new will have much higher insurance and costs, but if you pick a good car your headaches besides that will be minimal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67c1f9a423ceb1f692cfb733a892d559", "text": "From personal experience (I financed a new car from the dealer/manufacturer within weeks of graduating, still on an F1-OPT):", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "23fd7f9dc7b35a42c2e519670245b8b1", "text": "I've read online that 20% is a reasonable amount to pay for a car each month - Don't believe everything you read on the internet. But, let me ask, does your current car have zero expense? No fuel, no oil change, no repairs, no insurance? If the 20% is true, you are already spending a good chunk of it each month. My car just celebrated her 8th birthday. And at 125,000 miles, needed $3000 worth of maintenance repairs. The issue isn't with buying the expensive car, you can buy whatever you can afford, that's a personal preference. It's how you propose to budget for it that seems to be bad math. Other members here have already pointed out that this financial decision might not be so wise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e21fe223ce9f185e659a6600b6a58de2", "text": "\"Now, to buy in full (and essentially have zero savings), buy in part (£10000 deposit, followed by a loan of £4000) or PCP/HP more of the value? So, you are assessing if the car is worth having with either none or only 4,000 in savings. This is the most critical information you have provided. My outright opinion is to always buy a mildly used car as I hate the idea of loans and interest. With the amount of money that you currently possess, I believe the \"\"Buy-in-part\"\" option is best as it reduces your interest liability; but, I don't believe you should do it currently. 4,000 is a rather small cash fund for if something were to go boom in the night. As for your question of interest: This is completely dependent on the amount you are able to pay per period and the total interest you are willing to spend, rows four and seven respectively. This is your money, and no one can tell you what's best to do with it than yourself. Keep looking for good leasing deals or if you think you can survive financial strife with 4,000 then follow your heart. \"\"Depreciation\"\" fluctuates to the buyer, so never assume what the car may lose in the next 2-3 years. Hope it all goes well my friend.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba52e2de758b83fa4bbace296bc92660", "text": "\"Yikes! Not always is this the case... For example, you purchased a new car with an interest rate of 5-6%or even higher... Why pay that much interest throughout the loan. Sometimes trading in the vehicle at a lower rate will get you a lower or sometimes the same payment even with an upgraded (newer/safer technology) design. The trade off? When going from New to New, the car may depreciate faster than what you would save from the interest savings on a new loan. Sometimes the tactics used to get you back to the dealership could be a little harsh, but if you do your research long before you inquire, you may come out on the winning end. Look at what you're paying in interest and consider it a \"\"re-finance\"\" of your car but taking advantage of the manufacturer's low apr special to off-set the costs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d864190cdecc0a7b03e663b49b5604b", "text": "It's my understand that leasing is never the better overall deal, with the possible exception of a person who would otherwise buy a brand new car every 2 or 3 years, and does not drive a lot of miles. Note: in the case of a company car, Canadian taxes let you deduct the entire lease payment (which clearly has some principal in it) if you lease, while if you buy you can only deduct the interest, and must depreciate the car according to their schedule. This can make leasing more attractive to those buying a car through a corporation. I don't know if this applies in the US. The numbers you ran through in class presumably involved calculating the interest paid over the term of the loan. Can you not just redo the calculation using actual interest and lease numbers from a randomly chosen current car ad? I suspect if you do, you will discover leasing is still not the right choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29c366b66bc9ac78b881ee6be8d430e3", "text": "That interest rate (13%) is steep, and the balloon payment will have him paying more interest longer. Investing the difference is a risky proposition because past performance of an investment is no guarantee of future performance. Is taking that risk worth netting 2%? Not for me, but you must answer that last question for yourself. To your edit: How disruptive would losing the car and/or getting negative marks on your credit be? If you can quantify that in dollars then you have your answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "1d7a9f474c7febfeb6d52e5333e4c82e", "text": "The car company loans you money at 1 or 2% because it is part of the incentive to get you to buy the car. Car company transactions are complex involving the manufacturer, the dealership, and the financing part of the car company. Not to mention Rebates, the used car transaction, and the leasing department. If they don't offer you a loan then the profit from that part of transaction is lost to an outside company. The better loan rates from the manufacturer are only with shorter term loans and without the rebate. That is why some suggest that you get the rebate, and then go to a credit union for the loan for lowest overall cost and greatest flexibility. The advertised rates are also only for the customers with great credit scores and the room in their clash flow to pay off the loan in a year or two. If you don't fit in that category, the rates will be higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1495c43f88e687ac41a3febea399f557", "text": "I haven't heard of these before! (And I'm on the board of a Credit Union.) The 0.99% on loans is great. It's especially great on a used car: the steep part of the depreciation curve was paid by the first owner. The network probably have a business relationship with the credit union. Credit unions do indirect lending -- approval of loans that happens at the point of sale, which then the credit union gets as assets. Depending on the cost of that program, it probably won't hurt. Your credit union wants to keep your business, because they know that you have a lot of options for where you bank and where you get loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "481b8423ba7e31615b1775bafe7d3029", "text": "I looked at this a little more closely but the answer Victor provided is essentially correct. The key to look at in the google finance graph is the red labled SMA(###d) would indicate the period units are d=days. If you change the time axis of the graph it will shift to SMA(###m) for period in minutes or SMA(###w) for period in weeks. Hope this clears things up!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ac1a4fee9e944834ddf805300b66ea", "text": "\"30 minutes of driving times 5 days is 2.5 hours of driving. Average 40mph is 100 miles per week. Guess of 25mpg on your car is 4 gallons of gas. 4 times 3 bucks a gallon is 12 dollars. Say 3 hours per week of your time, times 9/10 dollars per hour is 27/30 dollars per week. 12 plus 27 is 39. So I'd say around 40 dollars per week seems fair. You could do 50 but it is playing with a doggy for a couple hours. Unless it's a giant (or tiny) pain in the ass, it's hardly \"\"work\"\" but that's just me. $40/week sounds fair. Hope you work it out pal.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
df6719502177dac3482894c6b3f476c0
Ongoing things to do and read to improve knowledge of finance?
[ { "docid": "cf879d817b1a282b62a24a5bf1dc6ed0", "text": "\"I'm another programmer, I guess we all just like complicated things, or got here via stackoverflow. Obligatory tedious but accurate point: Investing is not personal finance, in fact it's maybe one of the less important parts of it. See this answer: Where to start with personal finance? Obligatory warning for software developer type minds: getting into investing because it's complicated and therefore fun is a really awful idea from a financial perspective. Or see behavioral finance research on how analytical/professional/creative type people are often terrible at investing, while even-tempered practical people are better. The thing with investing is that inaction is better than action, tried and true is better than creative, and simple is better than complicated. So if you're like me and many programmers and like creative, complicated action - not good for the wallet. You've been warned. That said. :-) Stuff I read In general I hate reading too much financial information because I think it makes me take ill-advised actions. The actions I most need to take have to do with my career and my spending patterns. So I try to focus on reading about software development, for example. Or I answer questions on this site, which at least might help someone out, and I enjoy writing. For basic financial news and research, I prefer Morningstar.com, especially if you get the premium version. The writing has more depth, it's often from qualified financial analysts, and with the paid version you get data and analysis on thousands of funds and stocks, instead of a small number as with Motley Fool newsletters. I don't follow Morningstar regularly anymore, instead I use it for research when I need to pick funds in a 401k or whatever. Another caveat on Morningstar is that the \"\"star ratings\"\" on funds are dumb. Look at the Analyst Picks and the analyst writeups instead. I just flipped through my RSS reader and I have 20-30 finance-related blogs in there collecting unread posts. It looks like the only one I regularly read is http://alephblog.com/ which is sort of random. But I find David Merkel very thoughtful and interesting. He's also a conservative without being a partisan hack, and posts frequently. I read the weekly market comment at http://hussmanfunds.com/ as well. Most weeks it says the market is overvalued, so that's predictable, but the interesting part is the rationale and the other ideas he talks about. I read a lot of software-related blogs and there's some bleed into finance, especially from the VC world; blogs like http://www.avc.com/ or http://bhorowitz.com/ or whatever. Anyway I spend most of my reading time on career-related stuff and I think this is also the correct decision from a financial perspective. If you were a doctor, you'd be better off reading about doctoring, too. I read finance-related books fairly often, I guess there are other threads listing ideas on that front. I prefer books about principles rather than a barrage of daily financial news and questionable ideas. Other than that, I keep up with headlines, just reading the paper every day including business-related topics is good enough. If there's some big event in the financial markets, it'll show up in the regular paper. Take a class I initially learned about finance by reading a pile of books and alongside that taking the CFP course and the first CFA course. Both are probably equivalent to about a college semester worth of work, but you can plow through them in a couple months each if you focus. You can just do the class (and take the exam if you like), without having to go on and actually get the work experience and the certifications. I didn't go on to do that. This sounds like a crazy thing to do, and it kind of is, but I think it's also sort of crazy to expect to be competent on a topic without taking some courses or otherwise getting pretty deep into the material. If you're a normal person and don't have time to take finance courses, you're likely better off either keeping it super-simple, or else outsourcing if you can find the right advisor: What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? When it's inevitably complex (e.g. as you approach retirement) then an advisor is best. My mom is retiring soon and I found her a professional, for example. I like having a lot of knowledge myself, because it's just the only way I could feel comfortable. So for sure I understand other people wanting to have it too. But what I'd share from the other side is that once you have it, the conclusion is that you don't have enough knowledge (or time) to do anything fancy anyway, and that the simple answers are fine. Check out http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 Investing for fun isn't investing for profit Many people recommend Motley Fool (I see two on this question already!). The site isn't evil, but the problem (in my opinion) is that it promotes an attitude toward and a style of investing that isn't objectively justifiable for practical reasons. Essentially I don't think optimizing for making money and optimizing for having fun coexist very well. If investing is your chosen hobby rather than fishing or knitting, then Motley Fool can be fun with their tone and discussion forums, but other people in forums are just going to make you go wrong money-wise; see behavioral finance research again. Talking to others isn't compatible with ice in your decision-making veins. Also, Motley Fool tends to pervasively make it sound like active investing is easier than it is. There's a reason the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum is a few reams of paper plus 4 years of work experience, rather than reading blogs. Practical investing (\"\"just buy the target date fund\"\") can be super easy, but once you go beyond that, it's not. I don't really agree with the \"\"anyone can do it and it's not work!\"\" premise, any more than I think that about lawyering or doctoring or computer programming. After 15 years I'm a programming expert; after some courses and a lot of reading, I'm not someone who could professionally run an actively-managed portfolio. I think most of us need to have the fun part separate from the serious cash part. Maybe literally distinct accounts that you keep at separate brokerages. Or just do something else for fun, besides investing. Morningstar has this problem too, and finance.yahoo.com, and Bloomberg, I mean, they are all interested in making you think about investing a lot more than you ought to. They all have an incentive to convince you that the latest headlines make a difference, when they don't. Bottom line, I don't think personal finance changes very quickly; the details of specific mutual funds change, and there's always some new twist in the tax code, but the big picture is pretty stable. I think going in-depth (say, read the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum materials) would teach you a lot more than reading blogs frequently. The most important things to work on are income (career) and spending (to maximize income minus spending). That's where time investment will pay off. I know it's annoying to argue the premise of the question rather than answering, but I did try to mention a couple things to read somewhere in there ;-)\"", "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": "82a09b9d442f67a6f71c5eed67c103fd", "text": "Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be82c3281256bdb8267fe42b4086d9e8", "text": "I've found Pragmatic Capitalism very helpful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ac2024a51ee08822de105835d47809c", "text": "\"For learning about finances my main two financial resources are this site, and the Motley Fool. My secondary sources are keeping up with columns by my favourite economic journalists - in the press in the US, Australia, England, and India. Regarding your comment about feeling green on the basics despite the reading - you're not alone. I've been interested in financials for better than 10 years, but there are a lot of questions on this site where I say to myself, \"\"I've no idea of what the answer could be, what are our resident experts saying?\"\" Having said that, there are some topics where I feel as though I can weigh in - and they tend to be where I have a little book knowledge and a lot of personal experience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "673f44f21a17a28d1cc92f17625b3384", "text": "\"Before you can truly learn, you must unlearn first. I recommend the book \"\"Fooled by Randomness\"\" by Nassim Taleb.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "c15f5c199a1f0c161a1d09258410508b", "text": "Best of luck! Just an FYI, a great deal of finance firms look for people like you. The way you perceive things is completely different from the way someone who is traditionally trained in finance. Look into some peers of DE. Also, Private Equity (PE) firms...mainly the ones dealing with bio/pharma/whatever you specialize in. What are your excel skills like? Make them better! No mouse. Know VLOOKUP, GETPIVOTDATA, etc. Again, not to become redundant, but figure out what you want to do and go from there... If you are good/quick with your math look for trading. There are a lot of books out there on the subject of trading. Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis, will give you an insight to the lifestyle/mantra of traders (during the 80s). If you like digging into numbers/investigating things you may want to look into a more analytical role. To figure out if you like this read some financial statements. Look on SEC.gov, navigate to EDGAR. Look up a 10-k (annual report) and a 10-q (quarterly report). See if you like poking around/figuring out why and how things work. Hit up seekingalpha.com. This is a hodgepodge of people's opinion. Saying why they want to buy/sell a security. Look at the reasons. They will cite certain economic indicators or other signals. Seekingalpha is a place that can show you how financial types think. See how your views differ or align. Or even if you can expand on what they are saying. Investopedia is a great place to learn jargon and other terms. Frequent this place. Key terms: http://www.financialmodelingguide.com/financial-modeling-tips/tips/banking-financial-terms/ This gives short definitions. Investopedia will give you in depth definitions. Are you currently employed as a RandomAcademicDean? Does your college offer free courses to staff? If yes, take some classes FOR FREE! Take an accounting course (skip managerial, stick with financial), an econ course, a finance course. I am going to assume your college offers a class in Econometrics. Talk to one of the professors, if you think this class would be manageable, sign up. They will probably say your should take MACRO and MICRO. This is true, but you have a P.h.D in Chemistry so you have a demonstrated aptitude towards academia. Econometrics, in short, can be considered the science of business. Bottom line: Figure our your interest within the financial realm, act upon it. Play up your knowledge in chemistry (as a quantitative science) and experience as a dean (think management role). tl;dr soak up knowledge. regurgitate when necessary. P.h.D = good. read a lot. Finance is a big world, you will fit in!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faa8b56eb94acc86948a4221b8a79aa5", "text": "Assuming you were immersed in math with your CS degree, the book **'A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street' by Andrew Lo** is a very interesting book about the random walk hypothesis and it's application to financial markets and how efficient markets might not necessarily imply complete randomness. Lots of higher level concepts in the book but it's an interesting topic if you are trying to branch out into the quant world. The book isn't very specific towards algorithmic trading but it's good for concept and ideas. Especially for general finance, that will give you a good run down about markets and the way we tackle modern finance. **A Random Walk Down Wall Street** (which the book above is named after) by **Burton Malkiel** is also supposed to be a good read and many have suggested reading it before the one I listed above, but there really isn't a need to do so. For investing specifically, many mention **'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham** who is the role model for the infamous Warren Buffet. It's an older book and really dry and I think kind of out dated but mostly still relevant. It's more specifically about individual trading rather than markets as a whole or general markets. It sounds like you want to learn more about markets and finance rather than simply trading or buying stocks. So I'd stick to the Andrew Lo book first. --- Also, since you might not know, it would be a good idea to understand the capital asset pricing model, free cash flow models, and maybe some dividend discount models, the last of which isn't so much relevant but good foundations for your finance knowledge. They are models using various financial concepts (TVM is almost used in every case) and utilizing them in various ways to model certain concepts. You'd most likely be immersed in many of these topics by reading a math-oriented Finance book. Try to stay away from those penny stock trading books, I don't think I need to tell a math major (who is probably much smarter than I am) that you don't need to be engaging in penny stocks, but do your DD and come to a conclusion yourself if you'd like. I'm not sure what career path you're trying to go down (personal trading, quant firm analyst, regular analyst, etc etc) but it sounds like you have the credentials to be doing quant trading. --- Check out www.quantopian.com. It's a website with a python engine that has all the necessary libraries installed into the website which means you don't have to go through the trouble yourself (and yes, it is fucking trouble--you need a very outdated OS to run one of the libraries). It has a lot of resources to get into algorithmic trading and you can begin coding immediately. You'd need to learn a little bit of python to get into this but most of it will be using matplotlib, pandas, or some other library and its own personal syntax. Learning about alpha factors and the Pipeline API is also moderately difficult to get down but entirely possible within a short amount of dedicated time. Also, if you want to get into algorithmic trading, check out Sentdex on youtube. He's a python programmer who does a lot of videos on this very topic and has his own tool on quantopian called 'Sentiment Analyzer' (or something like that) which basically quantifies sentiment around any given security using web scrapers to scrape various news and media outlets. Crazy cool stuff being developed over there and if you're good, you can even be partnered with investors at quantopian and share in profits. You can also deploy your algorithms through the website onto various trading platforms such as Robinhood and another broker and run your algorithms yourself. Lots of cool stuff being developed in the finance sector right now. Modern corporate finance and investment knowledge is built on quite old theorems and insights so expect a lot of things to change in today's world. --- With a math degree, finance should be like algebra I back in the day. You just gotta get familiar with all of the different rules and ideas and concepts. There isn't that much difficult math until you begin getting into higher level finance and theory, which mostly deals with statistics anyways like covariance and regression and other statistic-related concepts. Any other math is simple arithmetic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31edf85d0253e45a86d4bf8992add560", "text": "Tim Ferris has some pretty good finance related episodes with hedge fund managers or personal finance authors (for e.g. the one with Ray Dalio or Tony Robbins). They are not exclusively finance related but include some pretty in-depth conversations. 20-Minute VC is also great if you're interested in Venture Capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e031f2603fab3e6d0c25543deb560f8d", "text": "Also you have to be aware that there's an academic finance which is very nice and clean and mathematical, and then there is finance how it works in the real world, which is chaotic and unpredictable. CFA books, as mentioned by another poster, would be good for learning the former, but don't expect that knowledge to be of any practical value unless you are trying to get a degree or certification. If you do want to go that route, focus more on information about individual financial products and less on financial market behavior. If you want to learn more about how the markets actually work I would have to say that it's going to be very hard without any industry experience. When I started my first job after getting my finance degree I knew absolutely nothing about how things worked. There are some good books, though more of a good story than teaching material. Try Michael Lewis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80c3bca0cefb917a25817e527ebb492e", "text": "If you've already done some micro and macro, you are on the right track to learn finance. What you should study next depends on what kind of finance you want to know more about. Is it M&amp;A and corporate finance, more macro would not help much, but maybe some financial accounting. You could see if you could get your hands on a corporate finance text book since they are a good starting place to learn more about finance in general (and such a book is a relatively easy read). Much finance, however, requires good quantitative skills so probability, statistics, linear algebra and calculus, and their applications to finance, is never a bad thing to look into. This would open up for understanding e.g. derivatives that played a huge role in the financial crisis and in financial markets today.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e345d081e08d6227942a8e4623a2709d", "text": "I'd start with learning how to read a company's financial statement and their annual report. I would recommend reading the following: All three books are cheap and readily available. If you really want to enhance your learning, grab a few annual reports from companies' websites to reference as you learn about different aspects of the financial statements.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fac573afe5b5ce258d69594d7a172a9", "text": "My reading list for someone just getting into personal finance would include the following I know it's a bunch but I'm trying to cover a few specific things. Yeah it's a bit of reading, but lets face it, nobody is going to care as much about your money as YOU do, and at the very least this kind of knowledge can help fend off a 'shark attack' by someone trying to sell you something not because it's best for you, but because it earns them a fat commission check. Once you've covered those, you have a good foundation, and oh lord there's so many other good books that you could read to help understand more about money, markets etc.. Personally I'd say hit this list, and just about anything on it, is worth your time to read. I've used publishers websites where I could find them, and Amazon otherwise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d0a5ec79a19cac0b8b3e5a05ca08dd0", "text": "\"I would recommend \"\"How to Read a Financial Report : For Managers, Entrepreneurs, Lenders, Lawyers, and Investors\"\" by John A. Tracy for the following reasons: I also think the book would bridge the gap nicely between a broad understanding of finance and a more serious technical know-how.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18fdf9e3dfc67a60abdd1702ae7f00b6", "text": "Start at Investopedia. Get basic clarification on all financial terms and in some cases in detail. But get a book. One recommendation would be Hull. It is a basic book, but quite informative. Likewise you can get loads of material targeted at programmers. Wilmott's Forum is a fine place to find coders as well as finance guys.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691d30be5ea3ac2d0d01dfe13974d43d", "text": "For economics I recommend mises or these videos to get you started. For daily critical analysis of financial markets, keynesian government policies, and other interesting reading I recommend zerohedge. I've learned more about financial markets and government regulations by reading the comments section on zerohedge articles than anywhere else on the internet. The comment section is very raw (i.e. lots of fucking cursing) but there are some jewels of information in there. For daily critical thinking I suggest lewrockwell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6691ca2c034ab6b8013f2822f920b404", "text": "Financial literacy for individuals is the instruction and comprehension of different money related issues. This subject concentrates on the capacity to manage personal finance matters in a productive way, and it incorporates the information of settling on suitable choices about individual finance, for example, insurance premiums, educational fees, real estate investments, tax planning, retirement saving, budget management and so on. Let's have a look at the importance of Financial Literacy in an Individual's life so that it can become a source of inspiration for you. Inspiration and financial literacy for individuals enable people to end up plainly independent with the goal that they can accomplish budgetary solidness. The individuals who comprehend the subject ought to have the capacity to answer a few inquiries concerning buys, for example, regardless of whether a thing is required, whether it is reasonable, and whether it a benefit or a risk. Financial literacy for individuals shows the practices and states of mind a man has about cash that is connected to his everyday life. Financial literacy demonstrates how an individual settles on monetary choices. This attitude can enable a man to build up a money related guide to distinguish what he procures, what he spends and what he owes. The absence of financial education can prompt owing a lot of obligation and settle on poor monetary choices. For instance, the preferences or drawbacks of settled and variable loan costs are ideas that are less demanding to comprehend and settle on educated choices about in the event that you have monetary proficiency abilities. Monetary proficiency training ought to likewise incorporate hierarchical abilities, consumer rights, innovation and worldwide financial matters in light of the fact that the condition of the worldwide economy incredibly influences the U.S. Economy. As per the saying of one of the renowned actor cum producer, Lucille Bell, 'Keeping busy and making optimism a way of life can restore your faith in yourself'. Yes, the current market trend has proved this inspirational quote to a true extent. Investing money into trading and financial market is a hard nut to crack and it requires a thought-provoking financial inspiration for individuals. To earn handsome money, you need to become smart enough to understand the market behavior, market flows and all the associated ups and downs. Now, you are confused. No, you don't need to hold an MBA degree or become a financial expert to learn lucrative investing skills. Wealth Generators is there for you to make you learn all the essentials techniques required to make your hard earned money provide you with the best output which you can never imagine. Yes, optimism and the smart skills are the two pivotal ways to get success over the curvature of the financial twisting. We are considered to be one stop financial inspirations for individuals who wish to earn money by making smart investments. It all has become possible due to years of research and development of our financial veterans and their innovative attitude in developing financial tools. The amalgamation of the computer, communication technologies and our educational financial tools have lowered the risk of investments. With a commitment and optimistic approach, you can earn good money in no time, if you have proper market knowledge. Our experts have done extensive research and they are always updated with the latest insights of the trading and investment markets. We believe that your solid financial inspiration to save your expenses and turning them into handsome profits can make you a wealthy person. So, if you are really willing it, Wealth Generators is there for you, the ultimate source of your financial inspiration.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d56f8bf83590a9ac0d1ef077142de80", "text": "\"practice using excel more read more books on investing, practice making investing thesis, practice remaining \"\"nice\"\" while getting good and bad critique, expand your knowledge (it is impossible to be the best at everything in investing due to the multiple forms of investing that have contradicting principles), and think economics. Finance will be useless if you have a very limited understanding of \"\"scarcity\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdbfb8037f2d87473954bde0347c4882", "text": "\"in undergrad business, you will have a broad scope of information to cover, and schools and professors will vary widely in how they approach it. it will be hard to say for certain how you can edge out your peers before knowing what they are looking for. however, finance and business are intellectually nebulous, especially at the undergrad level. your best bet is to maintain a broad set of interests and stay well read on them. i would recommend watching Bloomberg fairly regularly, opening a brokerage account and taking advantage of the reps you can talk to, and reading news like The Atlantic and Washington Post, among others, as long as they are well reasoned and contemporary accounts. classic and modern economics books will give you superior frameworks in which to look at the \"\"smaller\"\" world of finance, which should set you apart from your peers as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b136684aff859e57a18347bea96e2291", "text": "Can anyone recommend a good textbook for a first course in finance? I'm not studying it, if it's relevant--I'm just a guy who wants a better understanding of the financial sector. I don't know anything anout finance outside a few basic concepts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d728d68b8cf974e8afddafb8687cce7", "text": "\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
111b23d8b9b6108a8971789530564c45
Do money markets fluctuate during market crashes?
[ { "docid": "b1267c56d307614ffae29e2461ade79f", "text": "As the commenters have already indicated, money market mutual funds are not guaranteed to maintain principal during all market conditions, and investments in mutual funds are not insured against loss due to market changes. That said, you can run a price search on Vanguard's website and see these results: So, despite all the economic problems since 1975, VMMXX has never traded at a price other than $1.00.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "191824de5be033fb66c499b8b3423653", "text": "\"Wikipedia has a solid article on Money Market Funds which includes a section on \"\"Breaking the Buck\"\" when the money market fund fails to return its full dollar. Money market funds smoothing out the daily (generally small) fluctuations of investing in short-term treasuries directly but have similar risk over longer periods. Some funds can and have lost money in market crashes, though even the worst performers still returned 95+ cents on the dollar. While few investments are guaranteed and likely none in your retirement account, money-market funds are likely the choice you have with the least fluctuation and similar minimal risk to short term treasuries. However, a second important risk to consider is inflation. Money market funds generally have returns similar or less than the inflation rate. While money markets funds help you avoid the fluctuations of the stock market the value of your retirement account falls behind the cost of goods over time. Unless the investor is fairly old most financial professionals would recommend only a small portion of a retirement account be in money market instruments. Vanguard also has a set of target retirement investment funds that are close to what many professionals would recommend. Consulting a financial professional to discuss your particular needs is a good option as well.\"", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "f3532117ebd729f5fb0d5b00f4a6a637", "text": "\"Possible but very unlikely. Money market funds invest in high grade liquid assets and the primary goal is not to lose money. I have not been able to find an example of a Vanguard money market fund ever \"\"breaking the buck\"\" and having the value of a share go below a dollar. It is possible that this could happen in the event of a large scale financial collapse, but even then I would call it possible rather than likely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e68cfb5a28d39979c5839becde274e73", "text": "\"First, it's an exaggeration to say \"\"every\"\" dollar. Traditional mutual funds, including money-market funds, keep a small fraction of their assets in cash for day-to-day transactions, maybe 1%. If you invest $1, they put that in the cash bucket and issue you a share. If you and 999 other people invest $100 each, not offset by people redeeming, they take the aggregated $100,000 and buy a bond or two. Conversely, if you redeem one share it comes out of cash, but if lots of people redeem they sell some bond(s) to cover those redemptions -- which works as long as the bond(s) can in fact be sold for close enough to their recorded value. And this doesn't mean they \"\"can't fail\"\". Even though they are (almost totally) invested in securities that are thought to be among the safest and most liquid available, in sufficiently extreme circumstances those investments can fall in market value, or they can become illiquid and unavailable to cover \"\"withdrawals\"\" (redemptions). ETFs are also fully invested, but the process is less direct. You don't just send money to the fund company. Instead: Thus as long as the underlyings for your ETF hold their value, which for a money market they are designed to, and the markets are open and the market maker firms are operating, your ETF shares are well backed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund for more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0494bdb49d2eeaa27c5df7da34298d7f", "text": "A market crash won't affect your cash held with your broker - however if the broker defaults (goes bankrupt), you may lose some or all of that cash. If you read the customer agreement that you signed when opening the account, it's very likely that there's a clause that stipulates that under certain circumstances, the broker has the right to use your cash and/or your positions without notice. If the broker default you may not be able to recover the assets they've been using. As an example, look at clause 14 of the Interactive Brokers US customer agreement. This is a fairly standard clause. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may have a partial or full legal protection against such an event (e.g. the SIPC protection for US-based brokers which would apply to you if your broker is IB LLC, even if you are not a US resident/citizen).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30f9b89b8dbfc12556848e570c45f60e", "text": "As JoeTaxpayer has commented, the markets are littered with the carcasses of those who buy into the idea that markets submit readily to formal analysis. Financial markets are amongst the most complex systems we know of. To borrow a concept from mathematics - that of a chaotic system - one might say that financial markets are a chaotic system comprised of a nested structure of chaotic subsystems. For example, the unpredictable behaviour of a single (big) market participant can have dramatic effects on overall market behaviour. In my experience, becoming a successful investor requires a considerable amount of time and commitment and has a steep learning curve. Your actions in abandoning your graduate studies hint that you are perhaps lacking in commitment. Most people believe that they are special and that investing will be easy money. If you are currently entertaining such thoughts, then you would be well advised to forget them immediately and prepare to show some humility. TL/DR; It is currently considered that behavioural psychology is a valuable tool in understanding investors behaviour as well as overall market trends. Also in the area of psychology, confirmation bias is another aspect of trading that it is important to keep in mind. Quantitative analysis is a mathematical tool that is currently used by hedge funds and the big investment banks, however these methods require considerable resources and given the performance of hedge funds in the last few years, it does not appear to be worth the investment. If you are serious in wanting to make the necessary commitments, then here are a few ideas on where to start : There are certain technical details that you will need to understand in order to quantify the risks you are taking beyond simple buying and holding financial instruments. For example, how option strategies can be used limit your risk; how margin requirements may force your hand in volatile markets; how different markets impact on one another - e.g., the relationship between bond markets and equity markets; and a host of other issues. Also, to repeat, it is important to understand how your own psychology can impact on your investment decisions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ebda2a7bb0b077f8bc29ca0eb874729", "text": "Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7777b222351bc03f73b9c5d9a640863", "text": "Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d4e37567e6c43bb6e80006ce502ad72", "text": "\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_exuberance &gt; Clearly, sustained low inflation implies less uncertainty about the future, and lower risk premiums imply higher prices of stocks and other earning assets. We can see that in the inverse relationship exhibited by price/earnings ratios and the rate of inflation in the past. But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade? &gt; — \"\"The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society\"\", 1996-12-05\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4e31795af415c177c865881565520b2", "text": "(After seeing your most recent comment on the original question, it looks like others have answered the question you intended, and described the extreme difficulty of getting the timing right the way you're trying to. Since I've already typed it up, what follows answers what I originally thought your question was, which was asking if there were drawbacks to investing entirely in money market funds to avoid stock volatility altogether.) Money market funds have the significant drawback that they offer low returns. One of the fundamental principles in finance is that there is a trade-off between low risk and high returns. While money market funds are extremely stable, their returns are paltry; under current market conditions, you can consider them roughly equivalent to cash. On the other hand, though investing in stocks puts your money on a roller coaster, returns will be, on average, substantially higher. Since people often invest in order to achieve personal financial stability, many feel naturally attracted to very stable investments like money market funds. However, this tendency can be a big mistake. The higher returns of the stock market don't merely serve to stoke an investor's greed, they are necessary for achieving most people's financial goals. For example, consider two hypothetical investors, saving for retirement over the course of a 40-year career. The first investor, apprehensive Adam, invests $10k per year in a money market fund. The second investor, brave Barbara, invests $10k per year in an S&P 500 index fund (reinvesting dividends). Let's be generous and say that Adam's money market fund keeps pace with inflation (in reality, they typically don't even do that). At the end of 40 years, in today's money, Adam will have $10,000*40 = $400,000, not nearly enough to retire comfortably on. On the other hand, let's assume that Barbara gets returns of 7% per year after inflation, which is typical (though not guaranteed). Barbara will then have, using the formula for the future value of an annuity, $10,000 * [(1.07)^40 - 1] / 0.07, or about $2,000,000, which is much more comfortable. While Adam's strategy produces nearly guaranteed results, those results are actually guaranteed failure. Barbara's strategy is not a guarantee, but it has a good chance of producing a comfortable retirement. Even if her timing isn't great, over these time scales, the chances that she will have more money than Adam in the end are very high. (I won't produce a technical analysis of this claim, as it's a bit complicated. Do more research if you're interested.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "739a5cc8792b387f4c5766483658062d", "text": "The dynamics of different contracts and liquidity can be quite different on the last day on the month and for intraday trade make sure you use bid-ask data as opposed to historical trades. I'm not saying whether it works or not, but im just giving you ideas to improve your testing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72728dfe747564351ad248445cf8d524", "text": "There's an interview with Andrew Lo on the WSJ that's worth a listen. One idea he touched on briefly is how the rise of index funds may be creating an investor monoculture. If this is the case, then he thinks it could lead to more market volatility. Interesting stuff. http://www.wsj.com/podcasts/andrew-w-lo-talks-how-to-evolve-with-adaptive-markets/4B141ED2-23EA-409E-BFEE-96791EEB473E.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f141bf33c2f9103e671ece71f28922bb", "text": "Low volatility trading tends to be a hallmark of the late summer as Wall Street by and large goes on summer vacation. When all those traders and hedge fund managers return to work full-tilt in September, the market tends to become more volatile - either upwards or downwards. If you are wondering why these months have been particularly poor relative to others, than I don't think anyone knows the reason why.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f03e476b7d6e3fe770b7bf1b5e8cc65d", "text": "A market correction has been expected for several weeks. It happens all the time, but people need an excuse to panic. Sometimes, I think panic is their usual state and they just look for fuel to keep it going because they can't handle boredom.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "942a3f398e3d98d215c135e3a7153627", "text": "\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22901303846ca60835b18ec9e5f5cbc3", "text": "By all measures, the U.S. stock market is currently frothy. The apparent stability of the world financial system is superficial – financial asset prices are not real, the equilibrium is temporary, the lack of volatility is a trap, and when the whole thing goes haywire, there will truly be hell to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc0e8da639dc1e73363d45aa6c5efce5", "text": "Volatility typically decreases when stocks rise except pending news events or fast markets. It has a great impact of the premium of the option.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa
5850c6f802f7809a0df41d2299c4495f
Considering investing in CHN as a dividend stock
[ { "docid": "df15c219db2d6fa0d7edb53647ec32e9", "text": "CHN is a Closed-End Fund. CHN actually pays out three types of distributions: In the case of CHN, they appear to be paying yearly. The most recent dividend, with exdate of 18 Dec 2014, consisted of $3.4669 of Long-term capital gains and $0.2982 cash dividend. Prior to that, the dividend with exdate of 19 Dec 2013 consisted of $2.8753 long-term capital gains and $0.4387 cash dividend. For a standard dividend yield you typically would not expect short-term and long-term capital events to be included in a yield calculation, as these events really only occur in relation to a fund rebalancing (changing its investments) and are not really due to the actual performance of the fund in any way. Most free sites that provide dividend information do not make a distinction on the dividend type. Data source: Premium Data Full Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Premium Data/Norgate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d424b29f29d724e29c526bee6f6ce5bf", "text": "The yield on Div Data is showing 20% ((3.77/Current Price)*100)) because that only accounts for last years dividend. If you look at the left column, the 52 week dividend yield is the same as google(1.6%). This is calculated taking an average of n number of years. The data is slightly off as one of those sites would have used an extra year.", "title": "" } ]
[ { "docid": "715832a0ce5dd6bfc23d850927768807", "text": "One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fec6683380e14b8eb39ce4db93a54db", "text": "A specific strategy to make money on a potentially moderately decreasing stock price on a dividend paying stock is to write covered calls. There is a category on Money.SE about covered call writing, but in summary, a covered call is a contract to sell the shares at a set price within a defined time range; you gain a premium (called the time value) which, when I've done it, can be up to an additional 1%-3% return on the position. With this strategy you're collecting dividends and come out with the best return if the stock price stays in the middle: if the price does not shoot up high enough that your option is called, you still own the stock and made extra return; if the price drops moderately, you may still be positive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9", "text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ae06451df0a095d66d02dd73776f07a", "text": "\"Trading on specific ECNs is the easy part - you simply specify the order routing in advance. You are not buying or selling the *exact* same shares. Shares are fungible - so if I simultaneously buy one share and sell another share, my net share position is zero - even if those trades don't settle until T+3. PS \"\"The Nasdaq\"\" isn't really an exchange in the way that the CME, or other order-driven markets are. It's really just a venue to bring market makers together. It's almost like \"\"the internet,\"\" as in, when you buy something from Amazon, you're not buying it from \"\"the internet,\"\" but it was the internet that made your transaction with Amazon possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dcda72e44ad0126ba5ec11ec96b37e3", "text": "Check out the questions about why stock prices are what they are. In a nutshell, a stock's value is based on the future prospects of the company. Generally speaking, if a growth company is paying a dividend, that payment is going to negatively affect the growth of the business. The smart move is to re-invest that capital and make more money. As a shareholder, you are compensated by a rising stock price. When a stock isn't growing quickly, a dividend is a better way for a stockholder to realize value. If a gas and electric company makes a billion dollars, investing that money back into the company is not going to yield a large return. And since those types of companies don't really grow too much, the stocks typically trade in a range and don't see the type of appreciation that a growth stock will. So it makes sense to pay out the dividend to the shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1d75ffbcf884babd71bbaa5d04df609", "text": "Dividends yield and yield history are often neglected, but are very important factors that you should consider when looking at a stock for long-term investment. The more conservative portion of my portfolio is loaded up with dividend paying stocks/MLPs like that are yielding 6-11% income. In an environment when deposit and bond yields are so poor, they are a great way to earn reasonably safe income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38bdbd4c2225ed3344f2d36eb24aa6d8", "text": "You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f217d3abc42166d1c23f9eb0259334e", "text": "like any share, valuing facebook requires a projection of earnings and earnings growth to arrive at a present value for the right to share in these future earnings. there are economic arguments to be had for facebook to see either a negative or positive future long term net income growth. given the uncertainty we can establish a very rough baseline value by treating it as a perpetuity (zero growth) discounted at historical equity growth rate (8%) with some very simple math. An annual net income of 900 million discounted at 8 percent in perpetuity is worth 11.25 Billion. Now, take into account the fact that tech stocks trade at an inflated PE multiple of around 3 times that of a mature company in an established industry (PE x10-20 for average stocks and anywhere between x30-60+ for tech stocks), and I would expect the market cap for this perpetuity to be around 34 Billion. A market cap of 34 billion is a share value of around 15.5, which is the point where I would take up a long position with fair confidence. I do think that the share deserves a premium for potential income growth (despite the current and potential future revenue losses) simply due to the incredibly large user base and the potential to monetize this. Of course, it wasn't worth the 22 dollar premium that IPO buyers paid but its worth something. I think there is simply too much uncertainty for me to go long in the next 6 months unless it hits 15/share which may never happen. If the company can monetize mobile and show quarterly results in the next year I would consider a long position for anywhere from 15-20 a share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea063d3946d8ef4e5bcd5d26d2cf5a0f", "text": "There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51a19c3ec2b20ff8db1f6607bf091252", "text": "I would say that the answer is yes. Investors may move on purchasing a stock as a result of news that a stock is set to pay out their dividend. It would be interesting to analyze the trend based on a company's dividend payouts over 10 or so years to see what/how this impacts the market value of a given company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48616931c6365a9c59fde937b47b4dca", "text": "At 19 years old you can and should be investing to see your money grow over the years. Reinvesting the dividends does get to be pretty significant because they compound over many years. Historically this dividend compounding accounts for about half of the total gains from stocks. At 70 years old I am not investing to see my money grow, although that's nice. I am investing to eat. I live on the dividends, and they tend to come in fairly reliably even as the market bounces up and down. For stocks selected with this in mind I get about 4% per year from the dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7719ab87807175cd8603c49df9557578", "text": "Not a bad strategy. However: If you REALLY want tax efficiency you can buy stocks that don't pay a dividend, usually growth stocks like FB, GOOGL, and others. This way you will never have to pay any dividend tax - all your tax will be paid when you retire at a theoretically lower tax rate (<--- really a grey tax area here). *Also, check out Robin Hood. They offer commission free stock trading.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "184b63bf1790b8e69ca079b62aebdbb5", "text": "Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9a4f8784feb1f2536be8d274bd0fe86", "text": "Run your credit reports for the 3 major agencies to find out which of them have the debt was reported on and initiate the dispute process with each agency that reports the invalid debt. This will cause the person who put it on the report to either prove that it is valid or remove it from your report. Ignoring debt collector calls is not a good option, regardless of whether the debt is valid. They obviously think the debt is yours so their response is naturally to put it on your credit report. In most cases it is a good idea to respond in writing that it is not your debt. I doubt you have much recourse against the creditor. For one thing they DID try to contact you and you dodged them. That is not their fault. Secondly, it is unlikely you would prevail unless you could prove that they maliciously put false information on your credit or through gross incompetence did so. More likely is that they are mismatching you to a debt from someone with a similar name, or there is an accounting error somewhere. Or possibly you owe the debt and no one ever sent you a bill. It happens with medical bills all the time.", "title": "" } ]
fiqa